Skip to main content

dkos Reader Poll. 7/23-24. 14,954 respondents (as of 6.24.07 7:58 a.m. PT)

            2007                        2006            2005
            Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Jul May Mar Jan

Edwards      36  40  39  42  38  26  35  28  15   8   7   8
Obama        27  22  24  25  26  25  28  28
H. Clinton    9   6   6   3   3   4   4   5   2   2   2   3
Other         7   9   6   5   9   8   *   *   3   6   3   6
Richardson    6   5   8  13   8   6   5   4   2   1   2   3
No F'ing Clue 5   7   7   5   8   6   *   *   3   4   6   6
Kucinich      4   3   2   2   2   4
Gravel        1   1   3   0   0   0   0   0
Dodd          0   1   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
Biden         0   0   0   0   1   0   1   1   1   1   1   1

-- not running --

Bayh          -   -   -   -   -   -   -   1   1   1   1   1
Clark         -   -   -   -   -  14  17  26  17  15  15  22
Daschle       -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   0   1
Feingold      -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -  38  44  48  30
Kerry         -   -   -   -   -   -   1   1   2   1   1   3
Vilsack       -   -   -   -   -   1   0   0   0   0   0   0
Warner        -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -  10  10  11  12

Things have shaken up a little, with Hillary showing some signs of life in the netroots (which will likely improve given her strong recent support for the netroots and stellar debate performance last night), Obama making significant gains after bleeding support the past few months, and Edwards facing a small but significant (10 percent) drop in support.

I've grown to like Dodd's oddball candidacy, but he's got zero real traction, just edging out the disliked Biden by a single vote out of 14,959 cast. Even that crank Gravel got more votes (with few people embracing his schtick).

The top three Daily Kos candidates are in inverse order to the national polls which show the race as 1) Hillary, 2) Obama, and 3) Edwards.

Are we contrarians or visionaries?

p.s. I voted for "No Freakin' Clue". I'm enjoying watching the campaigns without any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more of you would give it a shot.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:13 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm likeing Hillary more each day (25+ / 0-)

    and would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.

    PEACE, through superior DIPLOMACY!

    by Walt starr on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:07:44 AM PDT

  •  Really happy with the top tier candidates (23+ / 0-)

    The top 3 are all good and I'm getting more impressed with HRC with her speaking out.

    Biden and Dodd are improving for me as well.

    We'll have a great matter which of the majors gets picked in the primaries.

    Never forget: Mother Nature bats last...and she is pissed.

    by SallyCat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:08:30 AM PDT

  •  Kos, I may be misreading the poll, but where is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lzachary, jj32, Marc in KS

    Edwards' 10 percent drop in support?

    Check out my new blog, dedicated to electing our boys in blue: An Enduring Democratic Majority

    by Skulnick on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:08:45 AM PDT

    •  4% is ten percent (13+ / 0-)

      of 40%.

      Je suis inondé de déesses

      by Marc in KS on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:09:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  40% minus 4% (or 10% of 40%)= 36% (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  Speaking Of Kos (6+ / 0-)

      This is Classic Kos:

      I'm enjoying watching the campaigns without any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more of you would give it a shot.

      In other words don't be involved in the democratic process of picking our candidate.

      You know. If your are not involved then you are not likely to donate money right now. You are not likely to volunteer to become part of a state organization that candidates are organizing for the '08 nomination run.

      Nope don't do any of that now Kos says. It is so "liberating" to not participate.

      And this site is supposed to be about electing Dems?

      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

      by talex on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think he's advocating non-participation (5+ / 0-)

        I think he's saying it's not the end of the world to watch with an open mind.

        I am undecided as well, yet I consider myself a big part of the primary contest. I remain informed, debate Republicans and if it's fundraising your worried about check this out:

        See, you can donate their and your money will not go to waste.

        Check out my new blog, dedicated to electing our boys in blue: An Enduring Democratic Majority

        by Skulnick on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:22:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm just reading what he is saying (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and he is saying what I quoted above.

          Obviously he is not talking to undecideds like you. There would be no logical reason to say what he said to undecideds because they are undecided.

          Who his message is aimed at is people who are decided and emotionally involved. And he is encouraging them to become uninvolved.

          That is a dumb thing to say.

          As for ActBlue, you can see that the participation in the link you provided is next to zero. I like most other voters prefer to donate to specific candidates. And when we don't donate to a specific candidate we are perfectly capable of donating directly to one of the Democratic organizations that help elect the candidates.

          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

          by talex on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Eh, I think you may be reading too much into it (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cwaltz, Lobsters, kyril

            I am sure that he would never tell someone to run away from their candidate. I think he's just enjoying being non-committed right now and he's boasting.

            I wouldn't take it as an insult, can you really doubt that he doesn't want the White House badly in 2008?

            If it makes you feel any better, I appreciate that you are willing to work hard for a specific candidate, and I hope that your candidate is eventually mine.

            Check out my new blog, dedicated to electing our boys in blue: An Enduring Democratic Majority

            by Skulnick on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  well, not to mention... (0+ / 0-)

        it is a straw poll of who you support at the time.  The questions was "Who is currently your favorite 2008 candidate?"

        Frankly, I have a hard time thinking anyone as invested as Kos in Dem politics doesn't have someone he favors at this point.  Besides that, his comment had an I'm better than you attitude.  

        •  True, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          A Kos endorsement has the effect of biasing people on this site. Without a Feingold in the race, there isn't nearly as much passion among the progressive wing for any particular candidate. Thus it's easier for people to make up their own minds.

          If Kos endorsed Edwards, most of the debate on this site would switch to anti-Edwards stuff, and we'd see much less discussion about the other candidates. I like the fact that the big bloggers are holding off on endorsements this year.

          •  I wouldn't say there isn't enough passion from (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            the progressive wing for any particular candidate, rather that there is a considerable amount of passion for both Edwards and Obama among significant segments of the progressive wing, as this poll shows, and we therefore don't see monolithic support from progressives like we did with Dean in 2003 (which I think is what you're getting at anyway); it's less a matter of "not enough passion for any particular candidate", though, than it is the contrary, with the existence of more than one good, viable, and passion inspiring choice for the progressive wing.

            In 2006, Rove learned the equation that determines the absolute value of stupid. Namely, if you're negative and stupid, you're still just as stupid.

            by ShadowSD on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:02:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  His attitude might be better than yours, (0+ / 0-)

          but he suggests no such thing.  I too signed up for NFC and remain unattached and fairly inattentive to the candidates' struggles.  I rather wish they were working the jobs that they were elected to do.  Such a lot to do...

          it's the relationship, stupid.

          by signalcamp on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:55:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I sure hope Markos lets us know when it's appropriate to become emotionally invested.

          In the meantime, maybe he shouldn't post straw polls.  Because, you know, voting in those encourages (gasp!) a bit of emotional investment.

          Cuckoo for Coco Puffs

          by happiness cat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:14:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  democratic process (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Picking the party's nominee was never supposed to be a "democratic process."  The era of direct primaries came about as a well-intentioned but, IMO, counterproductive result of one bad year (1968).  See Thomas Patterson's book Out of Order for a scathing critique of the process.

        Still, now that the power has (sort of) been given to us, we might as well do our part in swaying the decision.  But, as my sig notes, I see no crucial difference between the top-tier candidates that would make me give a penny or a scrap of shoe leather in favor of one of them.  When the general election comes, though, it's life or death as far as I'm concerned.

        Undecided, due to abundance of good choices. Interestingly, I've never heard a Republican say that.

        by cardinal on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:28:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let's be honest (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MoDem, sxp151

        Kos is enjoying being courted right now.  I mean he's even saying nice things about Hillary because her flaks took on O'Reilly's bullshit about this site.  He's uncommitted, and that's probably and honest opinion but the rest of us don't have quite the same incentive to remain neutral.

        "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Kellor

        by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:28:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think he is saying she is doing (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GayHillbilly, masslib, JuniperLea

          well in the debates because she is. if people would take the film off their eyes they could see that.  She is extremely well prepared.  She handles questions with confidence and knowledge.  Like her or not she is running a great campaign.

          •  She's very good in debates. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I commented to that effect last night.

            "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Kellor

            by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:29:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly, (0+ / 0-)

            I hate Hillary with a passion, but she is doing well in the debates. Should she win the nom she will pivot right so fast your head will spin.

          •  You should read Kos' Post.. (0+ / 0-)

            that he wrote yesterday about people abusing the "troll" policy. Apparently, you need to read it if you have not already done so. It is title, "Either for us or against us".

            When you did abuse the policy with me, you made no effort whatsoever to find out what had happened when I was visciously and personally attacked when I only stated my view that I thought Hillary was not electable (which I backed up with facts and statistics). Sorry if you don't like the "word" I used, but it was only after being continually attacked by a particular poster-for stating my view, backed up with polls and statistics. It was not "sexist" to used the "b" word when that particular person greatly earned it after I was continually provoked by this person.

            Again, it was only after being attacked numerous times by this person-while staying civil on my part, that I finally struck back. In fact, I am a very strong feminist myself & have been a member of NOW and EMILY'S LIST for many years. But I don't get all hyper-sensitive over every little interpretation of a "word" someone uses without at least looking into the context.

            Please honor Kos's rules of this board by not abusing his troll policies. That is all Kos is asking.

            Have a nice day.


            If Not Us, Who,..... If Not Now, When?

            by VirginiaBlue on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:39:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you have got to be kidding (0+ / 0-)

              using the "b word" is a perfectly legitimate reason to troll rate someone. Find a better word.  When you use that it is not only an insult to the person  you are addressing but to all women.  I don't care what you think you provocation was or what you think your feminist creds are.  When you use that language you give other people permission to use it. As a feminist you should know better.
              Use sexist, racist or homophobic language or ideas on this blog and you will always get a troll rating from me.  You are the one who needs to go read the FAQ.

              ps...stop complaining about this incident.  Everyone gets troll rated on this blog at some point.  Welcome to dkos.

              •  Please Do Not Abuse the Troll System, T-I-A ! (0+ / 0-)

                I am once again politely asking you again, Ms. "TeresaInOPa" to please read Kos's post "Either for us or against us" about how many people like you, are abusing the "trolling" system. It was people like you to whom, Kos was referring. It is you who is the one who is acting uncivil and disrupting the board. Please stop disrupting the board and stick to the issues.

                The only reason why I called you on this was because it was actually Kos who has addressed people like you on this abuse, who are abusing the trolling system. I have never had any problem with anyone else on this board except you and that other "poster" who attacked me. And I have been on this board for quite a while now. If attacked first, I will strike back. Get used to it! Its funny; that other poster also insisted that I read the FAQs on this board to back up her so-called "arguments" (she insisted that the FAQ "rules" forbid any kind of negative comments about a political candidate within a diary). When I once again reviewed the FAQs; none of them backed her up. When I cut and pasted them to prove my case, this person just became more insulting to me.

                Same with your pathetic situation. I don't see anything in the FAQs that says that "bitch" is a sexist, forbidden word in and of itself, regardless of the heinous behavior of someone who acts as such. Its just your own, personal, hypersensitive, dogmatic interpretation. Just because you don't like the "b" word-regardless of the context, does not make it objectively a "sexist" word. Lots of women (i.e. feminists) use that word to describe the heinous behavior of someone.  In fact, you are now acting like one. And I don't apologize.

                I don't care what your so-called "feminist" credentials are either; you get all hyper-sensitive over a comment that completely describes the heinous behavior of a particular poster on this board who personally attacked me repeatedly after I repeatedly remained civil until finally striking back. There is no "consensus" that the "b" word is "sexist" in and of itself, regardless of the context.

                When someone engages repeatedly in extremely rude, insulting, shrill behavior-as was the case with that poster who attacked me last week; then the term I used is in fact, an accurate description of that person's behavior. Just because I stated a very legitimate point of view about Hillary Clinton's electability-backed with with legitimate poll numbers-a view that is shared by millions of concerned Democrats around this country; that particular poster had a melt-down and ripped into me personally. It looks like you have those same kind of "issues" too.

                I am done with you. I have asked you to please respect Kos's policies of not abusing the troll system and have gotten this off my chest. I will now go back to more important things to do besides wasting my precious time on this planet with zeros like you.


                If Not Us, Who,..... If Not Now, When?

                by VirginiaBlue on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:42:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Got to agree with talex on this one (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Although Kos's neutrality is good (please keep it up!) because it may just save us from the endless circular paranoid threads of 2004, the comment talex highlights regrettably does seem to have a bit of that 'independent' pose that really sticks in the craw of dedicated campaign volunteers, because it makes us out to be the dweebs.

        I'm enjoying watching the campaigns without any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more of you would give it a shot.

        Well, that really isn't a very 'people powered' thing to say.  

        But what the heck!  Another twenty years on this path and maybe Kos will begin to see it as a 'horserace'.

        Stop the bullshit.

        by wetzel on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:33:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like Markos's neutrality so far (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soros, Pegasus, kyril

          I'm enjoying watching the campaigns without any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more of you would give it a shot.

          I like this.  Emotional investment in a candidate seems to manifest itself in the form of hit-pieces against other candidates and take the form of "either you're with us or against us".  If your only news source were DK, you would think the two Democratic front-runners were a center-right corporatist, and a Liebermann-wannabe who thinks coal liquification is the answer to all the worlds problems.

          •  wait just a minute! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            If your only news source were DK, you would think the two Democratic front-runners were a center-right corporatist, and a Liebermann-wannabe who thinks coal liquification is the answer to all the worlds problems.

            I don't understand.  You mean they're not?

            Stop the bullshit.

            by wetzel on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:03:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's different for him (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        because he's a public figure and an informal spokesperson for the Democratic party.

      •  "No Freakin' Clue" ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "It's quite liberating"  Way to not take a stand Kos.

      •  Don't you believe O'Reilley and the right (0+ / 0-)

        Damn! I thought we were all robots of whatever Our Leader says.

        I am shocked, shocked, this post has not been troll rated.

        The wise are driven by reason; ordinary minds, by experience; the stupid, by necessity, and brutes by instinct. Cicero

        by MoDem on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:00:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am still a little scared (6+ / 0-)

    and so am in the "no freakin' clue" camp.

    They all have things going for them, they all have things that give me pause.

    I guess living in Kansas I mostly just have to wait until the rest of the country decides who the Democratic nominee is going to be.  That's probably a good thing.

    Je suis inondé de déesses

    by Marc in KS on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:08:47 AM PDT

    •  Actually, (6+ / 0-)
      90% of the politically aware people I know here in Ohio feel as you do, Marc. They just haven't made up their minds. That's why I find it especially disturbing for the media to be stampeding us into choosing "winners" based on polls, and even people here at DailyKos pushed into accepting that Hillary has been given to us as our candidate. Most people just don't know which candidate they prefer yet -- and that's just the ones even paying attention.

      A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

      by anastasia p on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:13:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is the "given to us" crap? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lobsters, KnowVox

        The majority of Democratic VOTERS (read: actual people) say they support Hillary at this point.  And the majority of Democrats who watched the debate last night said that Hillary won.  Its not like the Democratic primary voter is a passive actor in this process.  

        Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

        by tmendoza on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:19:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  accurate articulation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marc in KS

          The majority of Democratic VOTERS (read: actual people) say they support Hillary ...

          really?!? over 50% of Democratic voters (that's what constitutes a majorite, no?) support Ms. Clinton?

          must be a parallel universe somewhere ... somebody show me the worm-hole ...

          it's about biconceptualism ... Obama08

          by wystler on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:45:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is either spin or you can't read polls. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GayHillbilly, Marc in KS, kyril

          In the same poll in which two thirds of voters say that they have no preferred candidate, the pollsters still ask the candidates who they would vote for if they had to make a decision today. Having a plurality on this latter question doesn't mean you have a majority of voters supporting you; the majority has no preference. To be fair, most political reporters are misrepresenting the poll results too.

          "What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" - J. Madison

          by berith on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:53:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Who won, who lost (7+ / 0-)
    who care? AOL had a poll up but they didn't have my choice for who lost last night: the Republicans!

    A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

    by anastasia p on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

  •  give it a shot (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, Walt starr, cwaltz

    I'm enjoying watching the campaigns without any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more of you would give it a shot.

    i know what you're saying. people's opinions seem to be set in stone already, and it's killing the discourse around here. but if the political junkies on dailykos aren't supporting the candidates, helping them build buzz and organization and warchests, then who exactly is driving the primary process? corporate donors, the DLC, and the MSM?

    •  The netroots is today's first part of the (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Builderman, Caldonia, Marc in KS, KnowVox

      grassroots. If we can talk about candidates here then working the streets then we have momentum going into 2008.

      I think lots of us are trying to keep the discourse positive on candidates regardless of who we support. There will always be a few disruptive commenters - we'll just try to get past them.

      Never forget: Mother Nature bats last...and she is pissed.

      by SallyCat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:11:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marc in KS

        The discourse here is not indicative of what goes on while canvasing meat space.  While we are sitting here debating who won the debate, there are real live people going door to door today talking about the candidates.  These canvasers could care less about the debates between you and I.

        •  If I get good info on the other candidates here (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yoshimi, Caldonia, Marc in KS, Mourge

          then it helps me when canvassing. What it's like in Ohio or NH I'm not sure. What it's like in Northern CA - the people at the doors know the info about all the major candidates.

          Info on the other candidates is critical for discussions - at least in my area.

          Never forget: Mother Nature bats last...and she is pissed.

          by SallyCat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are right. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          There is nothing wrong about debating whether or not a candidate is electable vs. no-electable in terms of what is best for our party, going into the general election. This argument that we should "never criticize" a candidate holds no water. Debate is healthy.

          Once a candidate is nominated, then we unite behind them. But right now, we need a open, healthy debate without some people threatening to "troll" other posters, just because they make arguments-backed up with polls & facts, about why they feel like some candidates are un-electable.

          If Not Us, Who,..... If Not Now, When?

          by VirginiaBlue on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:11:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The problem here isn't people lacking (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      passion in support of primary candidates

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:11:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nailed it! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dead letter office, kyril

      I completely understand that not everyone is going to feel passionately at this point about one candidate's message or another but those that do are a very important part of the process. Early support(which kos recognizes as incredibly valuable)in terms of importance should not be limited to cash. Would we talking about poverty at all if it weren't for the fact that the message has been fairly effective for Edwards? I'm not sure we would.

  •  I like them all (24+ / 0-)

    I'd take Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, or Richardson in a heartbeat.  

    We're blessed with a strong set of candidates who are smart and engaging.  There's diversity in the lot, but  no one is in the group because they are black, or female, or Hispanic.

    A damn good crop.

  •  I'm finding NFC very enjoyable as well. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, Walt starr

    Though it would be nice to feel passionately involved.  There's time enough for that in the new year.

    I think name recognition is a major factor in national polls.  Everyone knows Hillary's name.  When Democratic candidates for President are discussed in the MSM Hillary and Obama are mentioned far more than the other candidates.  

  •  My wife switched to Biden after he spoke (16+ / 0-)

    the truth about that damn gun nut.

    Of course, it's only a matter of time before his candor alienates her.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:10:30 AM PDT

    •  your wife switched (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, Builderman, jj32, Geekesque, LV Pol Girl

      but who's your "baby" gonna vote for?

    •  I'd like Biden for VP. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Builderman, Geekesque, kyril

      "Terrorism is war by the poor, and war is terrorism by the rich." -- Peter Ustinov

      by GeckoBlue on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:11:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Biden made it quite clear (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nightsweat, Geekesque, Lobsters

      That he's running not for President, but for Sec. of State.  When Richardson mentioned that, he just smiled.  Telling, to me.

      Incidentally, I think Sec. of State should be an elected position.  But that's something else entirely.

    •  Biden was great on THAT issue. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque, kyril

      I wish all of the candiates, particularly Edwards, Hillary and Obama were given the opportunity to give a similar answer. I am sure they would have and were eager to do so, but never given the opportunity by Anderson to address kossacks on that issue.

    •  Biden Gets It, Hillary also Looks Strong (0+ / 0-)

      My review of the debate from www.NonPartisans.Org:
      Biden Gets It, Hillary also Looks Strong

      The You Tube Debate as this will forever be known,
      is historic, even revolutionary. But will anything really change?

      This much is certain, the way in which debates like this are presented has changed, and it is a welcome one. The chance for people to submit their questions through You Tube is a positive step toward more involvement directly by the people, but it is noteworthy in that it widens the gap between the technolgically abled have and have nots: is an inner city or poor rural farmer able to have the same chance as a suburbanite or tech savy geek to ask a question, and more importantly, will the questions be skewed toward issues that concern the haves at the expense of ignoring issues that concern the have nots?

      Refreshingly, the answer to the second question appears to be no. There were questions about universal health care and and answers concerning better schools for poor people in South Carolina by Senator Edwards. This was, after all, a Democratic debate. But one wonders what the questions would be by people that don't have two nickels to scrape together. There appeared to be no welfare mothers or homeless people asking any questions. Maybe an effort can be made in future debates to go out to the community with video crews to ask poor folks questions rather than rely on people with their own video devices to ask questions.

      Debate Review: How the candidates looked
      Senator Clinton looked polished, refreshed, composed, and professional. Senator Edwards looked well groomed, honest, and seemed genuine in his answers, Senator Biden looked experienced, capable, presidential, and fired up. Senator Kucinich was certain in his answers, yet his appearance and stature make him a long shot. He does, however, speak with conviction and does not dance around answers. Senator Dodd looks like a good running mate for a younger candidate, like possibly an Edwards-Dodd ticket (Or Bush-Cheney for that matter). Senator Obama looked tall, composed and speaks with conviction as well. Governor Richardson looked confident, experienced, well informed, and capable. No one made any major gaffes. The other candidates not mentioned here did not make a major impression on me. The format did not allow for that much confrontation between the candidates. In fact it looked like a 60's love-in or a comedy fest at the end of the debate. Refreshing for politics these days, though I doubt that will happen when the respective nominees from each party debate.

      Why I Liked Joe Biden the Best in this Debate
      Senator Biden is the only candidate from either party that has put Darfur on the front burner, even advocating the use of U.S. ground forces in Iraq. Senator Clinton, when pressed on the issue, is for U.N. and African Union troops but not U.S. troops on the ground. This is a cop out, and is a position she and many others have had for years, but this position has been taken at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Sudanse in Darfur being killed in a genocide much like the way Jews were systematically killed in Europe during World War II when the world did nothing until they were directly engaged in war with Germany. Senator Biden gets that, all the others don't.

      Senator Biden is also realistic about the fallacy of pulling out U.S. troops from Iraq. He states correctly that a U.S pullout would take a full year from the time any pullout would begin, and hinted that the other candidates were pandering to the Democratic base when any of them say they want troops out now. For my article on why we cannot pull out of Iraq now click here.

      Senator Biden lags far behind the other candidates in the polls, but somehow the cream always rises to the top. He would have to be paired with a geographically correct running mate to have shot at winning the general election, but as far as experience, which counts a lot when Senators Clinton and Obama have only eight years combined in the Senate, knowledge of the issues, demeanor, and a moderate stance on Iraq and on other issues, he is the best choice the Democrats have.

      Hillary Clinton lost me on the flag burning issue a couple years back. In an effort to move toward the center by pandering to the right, she sponsored a flag burning amendment in the Senate. If you want to burn the First Amendment to protect burning the flag, to me that is not an acceptable concession to the right.

      Senator Obama would have a better chance at winning the general election simply by having an (R) next to his name instead of a (D). His answer on why Civil Unions is equal under the law to marriage smacks of separate but equal and the ghost of that Jim Crow law seems to stand on his shoulder when he tries to explain his stance on Civil Unions.

      Senator Richardson is extremely intelligent and would probably make a great President. Coming from New Mexico, a state with miniscule electoral votes, doesn't help him much.

      Senator Edwards would seem to be a viable candidate, being from the crucial South, and says a lot of good things, but he could not even carry his home state of North Carolina for Kerry in the last election.

      Copyright 2007 Andrew Chulock for reprint information contact

  •  "shaken" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Not stirred.  :-)

  •  I am in the "No Freakin' Clue" Group (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I like the selections so far, but have not yet put my support behind any of them.

    Like Kos, I feel quite liberated by this. I am not freaking out over this one or that one.

    "Benjamin Franklin once said that Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb. My fellow lambs"

    by Six Degrees of Aaron on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:11:52 AM PDT

  •  Neither Contrarians Nor Visionaries (0+ / 0-)

    Merely slightly less stale centrists that the losers who answer telephone pollsters.

    •  Thats a winner of a political idea (0+ / 0-)

      The American public are "losers."  Nice.

      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

      by tmendoza on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:21:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Same thought...different logic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "Our" top three are the same as the national polls--just in a different order.

      Jesus, MLK, Susan B. Anthony, Mandela...these are visionaries. People who can make actual a world that almost no one else can see.

      Specifically, what we are is a statistically unrepresentative sample. And given that we're all on DailyKos, this should come as completely unsurprising to anyone.

  •  I don't have a dog in this hunt yet.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...and my top three still are the same, in no particular order: Edwards, Obama, Richardson.  

    That said, I am become more of an admirer of the Clinton campaign each day.  She seems to make all the right moves at the right times, and avoid mistakes.  What keeps her out of my top three is that I never seen her as a visionary, and her campaign shows no sign of going in that direction even if she does become the nominee.  Pragmatism may be how she (or whoever becomes President) has to govern, but it sure doesn't excite, either.

    Regardless, I will support the Democratic nominee once he or she is revealed.

    Alton IL

    •  If you look at Hillary's lifetime trajectory.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      masslib, Hairy Legs

      she was way ahead of lots of people on lots of issues. Her work on behalf of underprivileged women and children through out the world has always been first rate. I think she is a visionary but one that is committed to actually getting things done in the way they can get done.

  •  Interesting (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LV Pol Girl, dotster, kyril

    reading on the breakdown.  I like that Obama seems to be the most 'stable' in the polls with no huge up or down trends.  I think that argues for a solid base of support for the long haul.  Interesting to me too is that HC's upswing would seem to have been pulled mainly from Edwards supporters as those supporting the other candidates are likely pretty diehard and don't seem likely to jump to HC.

    Just my take, of course, but interesting to speculate.

    My favorite quote from last night:

    KUCINICH: You notice what CNN did. They didn't put anybody to the left of me. Think about it.


    COOPER: I'm not sure it would be possible to find anybody.



    ...honor is a harder master than the law. It cannot compromise for less than 100 cents on the dollar and its debts never outlaw. - Mark Twain, a Biography

    by billd on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:13:30 AM PDT

  •  I Like Hillary More All The Time. (8+ / 0-)

    And as I've said before, if she and Big Dog move in once again, the sound of wingnut heads exploding will be deafening. And very, very amusing.    :)

    Attention Republicans: If we need anymore of your "leadership" we will call you.

    by Ky DEM on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:13:31 AM PDT

  •  Sure, ignore the Kucinich surge. (11+ / 0-)

    His number went up 33%!!  Here comes the freight train, baby!  Woooooo! Woooooo! chug-a-chug-a chug-a-chug-a chug-a-chug-a..

    What? I like making train noises.

    The Cubs WILL win the World Series in '07. I'm not saying which century, though.

    by nightsweat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:13:40 AM PDT

  •  I could easily support any of the top tier (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billlaurelMD, SallyCat, NYFM

    and also Dodd. I ticked the Edwards column because I like his positions - and frankly, I'm a bit concerned about the interests Clinton, and to a lesser extent Obama, might actually represent as president.

    The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

    by semiot on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:13:59 AM PDT

  •  Hillary was strong last night. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm still a bit angry at Anderson for not giving her the opportunity she desperately wanted to address kossacks on the LGBT marriage issue, provide health insurance for immigrants and fighting against Christian bigots and supporting Atheist Americans.

  •  It's Time to Commit to a Candidate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, ShadowSD, dotster

    Well, I guess it's easier to watch the campaigns from the sidelines, but given the shortened time till the primary voting begins you really shouldn't wait much longer to support a candidate.  This is particularly true if you want to prevent the "inevitability" of Hillary.  Now's the time to join the more than 258,000 financial supporters of Barack Obama!

    •  Kos: a guy with an opinion on everything, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      somehow has no opinion on who he will vote for in the primaries?  LAME.

      •  I wouldn't say it's lame... (0+ / 0-)

        ... but it is strange...

        On the other hand, there have been few straight answers or plans from the candidates about what they would actually do as presidents (assuming they would do something). The soundbyte debates haven't helped much so far. So it's pretty hard to chose a candidate...

    •  I'd put it as you can still contribute even if (0+ / 0-)

      you're only leaning towards a candidate, and not committing is perfectably fine at this stage.  

      But yes, contributing a small donation to a campaign or voting in online polls for who you lean towards are indeed important and vital ways to prevent the punditry from turning the race into a coronation.

      In 2006, Rove learned the equation that determines the absolute value of stupid. Namely, if you're negative and stupid, you're still just as stupid.

      by ShadowSD on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:15:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Are we contrarians or visionaries?" (4+ / 0-)

    More likely, "we" are well off white, college educated guys, the PolySciMen, who are wonderful, beautiful, very smart, important, creative, thought-leaders even, but blessed in ways that, while fortunate overall, cause an unfortunate deficiency in the treasures of cultural diversity.

    It's like a vitamin deficiency, you probably won't die from it but really, consider supplements.

  •  Edwards has had a 6% drop in support, not 10% Kos (0+ / 0-)
  •  I like Dodd and. . .Kucinich on Iraq (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zericm, CitizenOfEarth, kyril

    I'll take any of the candidates though--including Hillary.

  •  I know Dodd is the long shot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, mp

    but he is the only one who lifted a finger to oust Lieberman in the '06 campaign.  Everyone else sat by idley watching.  Hillary even sent the Big Dawg to campaign for Liebermonster.

  •  I'm telling you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, Pithy Cherub, kyril

    that I really really really tried to go into 08 without a favorite. Count me as someone a bit "marked" by the Dean experience, and in my brain, I do know that it will just make things easier to get behind the eventual nominee not to have made much of an investment (emotional, financial) in the race.'s just much harder than it seems. Despite my best intentions, I'm STILL being pulled to one candidate over the others. So far, I've resisted the calls for money (he has enough) and there's not much for me to do with actual voting (as far as I know, my state's primary is still too late to count), so it's more like reluctantly supporting a sports team right now.

    Put the circular firing squad in the circular file.

    by JMS on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:18:20 AM PDT

  •  Hillary has always made me cringe (9+ / 0-)

    But last night I thought she looked the most presidential, polished, confident, ready to take on the job.  She also reminded me a little bit of her husband, something in the rhythm of her speech, the calm pose of her head ... she seemed to ooze power. His coaching has been a tremendous help. The way she handled that surprising question -- the one about 'many mideast nations treat their own women as second-class citizens. What makes you think they'd take you seriously?' -- was remarkably adept, masterful even.  I'm breathing a little easier about her now. My remaining worry is that there are simply too many people in the US who would never vote for her no matter what, and once again we will have squandered an opportunity and driven ourselves into a ditch.

    *** Contains 100% recycled electrons ***

    by Xochi on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:19:23 AM PDT

    •  Don't you think other people will react the same? (7+ / 0-)

      Hardcore conservatives definitely will not vote for Hillary Clinton, but we don't need them to win, and we couldn't win them anyway.  Don't you think a lot of independent voters will have the same reaction you did?  When they actually get to hear her speak in her own words on the campaign trial?

      Many people's opinion of Hillary was formed in the early 1990s (when she obviously made some major mistakes) and then by the right-wing media for the last 15 years.  But the majority of Americans are not reached by the right-wing media.  Hillary will get a chance to speak to them.  And I think her fundamental intelligence, composure, preperation and yes likeability will win many independents over.

      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

      by tmendoza on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:30:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she is the dem candidate, (0+ / 0-)

        and that looks like a sealed deal, I really hope you are right...

        about Hillary's likeability though... that's the last word I'd use to describe her... but then again what do I know - until recently a clear majority of Americans thought Bush was likeable, so why not Hillary!?

    •  So, her polish, poise and electabiity ... (5+ / 0-)

      ...have improved. That's good for the campaign trail. But what about how she would perform as president? Has that changed?

      •  No, it would still be terrific. ;) n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nbutter, masslib, Hairy Legs

        Help make history - HILLARY in 2008!

        by Caldonia on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:52:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Granted, that's a further worry, but a remote one (0+ / 0-)

        It's a sad fact of our PlaySkool two-oarty electoral system that really, you're simply voting against the other party.  The one criterion for my vote this time is that you not be the Republican candidate. How stupid is that! What it means is, I will worry about how she performs as president starting in January 2009.

        I'm living in Holland right now, where you can actually vote for the party (they had 18 of them last election) you like best with the knowledge that if moderately successful in the election they will have some say in governing.

        Whether she turns out to be Hillary the Great or Hillary the Terrible is inscrutable.  Look how Shrub campaigned and then how he governed.  She would appoint better judges, she would have better people around her, she would be more thoughtful, she would have the advice and experience of her husband to tap, she has no illusions about the right-wing and what they will do to try and stop her.  I think she's sitting pretty well.  Good enough for my vote, anyway.

        It's funny, last week I would have laughed if you'd told me I'd be saying these things about Hillary Clinton.

        *** Contains 100% recycled electrons ***

        by Xochi on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:01:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary's calmness (0+ / 0-)

      Yes, but can she deliver a good convention speech.
      Her voice is too shrill.

  •  I wonder whether the blogosphere (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sny, kiwing, jxg, mcfly, skidrow, Hairy Legs, kyril

    has become a "special interest" group. It used to be that Kos especially would implore all the standard interest groups (unions, pro-choicers, etc.) to stop thinking single-issue and unite around Democrats to be more effective.

    Now it seems that bloggers want approval and kind words about blogging, more so than most other things. I wonder if a lot of the Edwards support comes not from his issues (on which he may be more eloquent, but still not in fundamental disagreement with any other candidates) but rather from his pro-blogger activities. This becomes more obvious when you look at Hillary's bump in the Kos straw poll, which even Kos says is because of her recent defense of Kos (and other pro-blogger activities).

    It feels like the bigger issues had historically been the war and such things, with "blogging-as-issue" being more an occasional navel-gazing exercise. Does it now seem like our main issue? And is that a problem?

    •  interesting point (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kiwing, Hairy Legs, kyril

      If that were the case, it would be quite annoying.  I am a scholar who (among other things) studies blogging, and I love doing it myself -- but even I would say that "blogging as issue" is probably the single worst voting criterion I've ever heard.

      Still, despite what Markos says, I doubt that Hillary's bump in support comes from her gestures to the netroots.  She's kicked major ass in every debate, and has proven to be better than the other candidates at deflecting Republican smears.  Plus, we don't know how many kossacks are moving to Hillary, and how much of the support reflects the newest users and lurkers who may have been inclined to her all along.

      Undecided, due to abundance of good choices. Interestingly, I've never heard a Republican say that.

      by cardinal on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:37:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cardinal, skidrow, Hairy Legs

        I think blogging-as-issue is a GREAT special interest, because it competes directly with MSM special interests. It's a defense of freedom of speech and of roots activism, and blog participation is an offer to interect directly with anyone with a computer, regardless of physical location. I don't generally put blog support on my list of things a candidate should have on his resume, but I do admit it makes me like them more when they support us instead of blindly accepting MSM framing of everything - and even more when they directly defend us TO the MSM.

        We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

        by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:18:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Blogging as an issue (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sxp151, Hairy Legs, Pegasus, kyril

      It feels like the bigger issues had historically been the war and such things, with "blogging-as-issue" being more an occasional navel-gazing exercise. Does it now seem like our main issue? And is that a problem?

      Very astute observation.  Never underestimate the power of ego.  One lesson of 2004 was that the netroots were a force to be reckoned with.  The positive side is that this gives a voice to those who might otherwise not be heard.  The negative side is that this gives politicians a means to stroke blogger egos to get their votes.  Today, one means of establishing a base as a candidate is to post a few messages saying you agree with the blogger issue of the day.

  •  With 9,000 votes cast they were at 40 Edwards an (0+ / 0-)

    24 Obama

    Someone was voting very often late yesterday.

  •  Amen to NFClue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billlaurelMD, lorelynn

    The debate last night was refreshing because we got to hear a mostly Rethuglacan spin-free set of questions, but no one sold me yet on who would be best. It's sad that I love what Kucinich has to say, and his programs are, to me, the best, but he's totally unelectable -- he's even being challenged at home in the primary next year by Rossemary Palmer, the mother of Sgt. Augie Schroeder who was killid in Iraq two years ago, and it looks like she's going to be a formidable opponent. -- but he's also classically Napoleonic and micro-managing to boot, and that just won't do.

  •  "Any of the Above" (0+ / 0-)

    Usually they put an option in these kinds of straw polls like "none of the above."  How about putting in an option, "any of the above"?  Since I believe that any Democrat is infinitely superior to any Republican, I share Kos' lack of emotional investment in this race.  Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd - any of them is OK by me.  

    •  How about "Approval Voting"? (0+ / 0-)

      I'd like to see a poll here where people check off all the candidates they'd be OK with, rather than just picking a first choice. We might get more interesting results. (I don't know how easy that is with the current setup though.)

  •  So, basically. (6+ / 0-)

    Since March, Edwards and Obama are the same, and Clinton has tripled her online support.

    Good going, folks.

  •  who is left? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zericm, poetas, kyril

    Dear Cable News Network . . .

    Initially, I was very impressed with the debates; however, that feeling faded fast.  I was enthralled by the format.  The candidates, the questions, and the responses were superior.  

    My infinite disillusionment was with Anderson Copper's continual decision to exclude Congressman Kucinich.  He did not authentically include the Congressman in the discussion!  The positioning of the candidates was also, predictably uneven.

    Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential aspirant that has a genuine Universal Health Care Plan.  Kucinich attempted to be recognized on this issue as he did on the question of exactly how we would exit Iraq.  Dennis Kucinich made every effort to speak on No Child Left Behind and Education.  When Chris Dodd mentioned that everyone ought to have a chance to address the topic, of course Kucinich was given none.

    Anderson Cooper allowed the Congressman to speak mostly when he chose to poll all the candidates.  It seems that Mister Cooper's true feelings and rationale were exposed when he said to Congressman Kucinich no one was to the "left" of him.  As Anderson Cooper spoke those words, his face was flushed.  His embarrassment spoke volumes . . . much more than Dennis was permitted to speak.

    It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

    by Bcgntn on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:21:28 AM PDT

    •  I had a number of problems with CNN's (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sxp151, Bcgntn, Lobsters, poetas


      • many of the videos were directed to "all of the candidates" but AC picked only one or two to respond
      • despite the interest in impeachment as expressed, for example, on the communitycounts web site, not one video asking about impeachment was aired
      • although the producers had to know that they were going to show the candidates' "youtube-style" spots, they showed them by pointing a camera at the screen in the auditorium (rather than direct-to-air) and the camera usually did not zoom in so that you could actually see/hear the spot until it was half over.
      •  well executed mis-en-scene (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoMoJoe, poetas, kyril

        Dearest NoMoJoe  . . .

        I thank you for this assessment.  Amen to you.  Might I add.  Hillary Clinton was placed center stage.  She wore a bright color.  Most of the questions went to her, even if the video-grapher referred to another aspirant.

        If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards chose to go beyond the allotted time, that was allowed . .  not that the other candidates had much opportunity to attempt to speak.

        In my study cinematography, this was well executed mis-en-scene! In respect to the principles of graphic design, art, and advertising we were just sold a candidate.  I am sooooooooo . . .  I have no words.

        It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

        by Bcgntn on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:52:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Also (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bcgntn, NoMoJoe

        a disproportionate number of Q's from California as well as using one individual's questions multiple times.

        Politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently -- often for the same reason.

        by KnowVox on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:53:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The medium is the message (0+ / 0-)

          Dear KnowVox  . . .

          Wow!!! Exactly.  I noticed that too.  Perhaps there are more cinematographers and better film producers there.  

          The medium is the message.  Sigh.(

          It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

          by Bcgntn on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:40:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed completely. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bcgntn, poetas

      They "sold" us Clinton.

      We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

      by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:12:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We're Fairly Atypical. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cardinal, berith, kyril

    We are much more focused on policy specifics and much less focused on public persona than average voters. There are better and worse reasons for that, but ultimately, that's reality.

    In culture, people who are more thoughtful and studied than average can in many situations have more influential views than average.

    But America doesn't have culture, it has markets, and markets working generally opposite to culture don't have so much use for thoughtfulness.

    I run a business which forces me to distinguish carefully between what I'd prefer in a product and what the general customers want. At minimum I had to learn not to be surprised and especially not to get beaten by those differences.

    We'd do our causes well to think a little more like that in the blogosphere.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:21:42 AM PDT

    •  excellent points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We'd do our causes well to think a little more like that in the blogosphere.

      What?  You mean instead of just sanctimoniously screaming about media bias and stupid people?  Hmmm.

      Undecided, due to abundance of good choices. Interestingly, I've never heard a Republican say that.

      by cardinal on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:40:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well I'll tell you what, Kos (5+ / 0-)

    I didn't watch it at all because the election is 15 months away, because I am waiting for AL GORE, and because I am active in local races in the 2007 election cycle!

    To me, this is all a distraction, eye candy for the spectators. People can do as they please. They can think these "debates" are important if they want to.  But you know what? People give a shit about potholes and crosswalks, and annexations, and building height restrictions, and sewer rates, too, and if we have the chance to make Democrats out of them for those reasons, then that's where I am.

    "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

    by Ivan on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:22:41 AM PDT

  •  Here's your headline: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Yoshimi, berith, jj32, Pegasus

    Obama cuts Edwards' lead in half.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Kellor

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:23:23 AM PDT

  •  Dodd in lieu of No Freaking Clue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, saralee

    Unless the earth shifts on its axis, I'm going to have to support one of the big three in the general election.  I see no reason to pick one now, I'll leave that to the millions of other Dems.  Plus that leaves me free to be skeptical and snarky about all three.  

    Until then, I'm supporting my home state Senator. He's has got more experience than the big three put together and he'd be a damn fine President.

    What did you do with the cash Joe?

    by roguetrader2000 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:24:48 AM PDT

    •  I like Dodd a lot. I love the fact that he (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      identified his family members who are school teachers as serving the public interest. He made teachers equivalent to senators and that means a great deal to me.

      I'm supporting Clinton or Edwards, but I could just as enthusiastically jump on the Dodd bandwagon. He's a good man and he'd make a good president.

  •  I'm gonna go with "visionaries" on this one... (0+ / 0-)

    ...combined with Elizabeth Edwards' strong presence here and elsewhere.  Nothing can make us feel more included in the process, and thereby generate support, than direct participation in this community.

    The other candidates would do well to learn from the example set by the Edwards campaign.  There are lots of us who will never be willing or able to attend a campaign rally.  Engage us here.

    •  But is that pandering? (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  No moreso than... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marc in KS

        ...Hillary trying and failing miserably to speak with a southern drawl during a speech in Alabama I would suppose. ;)

        Who would you rather have: a candidate who completely ignores the voters while touting focus-group-tested-and-polled policies that the candidate him/herself may or may not actually believe in, or one who engages the voters in as many ways as possible in an effort to demonstrate that the candidate truly believes in the policies that he/she is running on?

        I'm tired of being ignored by the President.  I want one who makes the effort to engage me.

        •  Are you confusing "Kossacks" with "the voters"? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yoshimi, chicago minx

          Earlier in the history of the progressive blogosphere, bloggers might have been more representative of the Democratic voters (or at least the progressive base). Now I'm not so sure. Notice that Kossacks are virtually the ONLY group of people who have Edwards high and Clinton low in polls. That means we're not representative of primary voters. Thus a candidate who tries to appeal to us (by going to YearlyKos for example) is not just looking for new ways to connect with voters, but trying to appeal to a very specific single-issue group. That sounds like pandering to me.

          •  Then doesn't that make all of them guilty? (0+ / 0-)

            All of them as in all of the candidates who are attending.

            And yes, I may be confusing Kossacks with the voters because this is and Digby are the only political blogs that I frequent.  I do have a narrow perspective, granted, and am still very "young" in the political arena in terms of understanding exactly how community members here differ from "primary voters" out there.

      •  Why is convincing people to support you (0+ / 0-)

        pandering? A candidate who doesn't try to get out his or her message to those receptive of it isn't much of a candidate.

        Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - - get involved!

        by okamichan13 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:23:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary is a good debater BUT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    berith, kyril

    she is compromised on the two most important issues-she voted for the war in Iraq and her political career almost went up in flames because of health care.  She is unable or unwilling to lead on either of those issues, so I can't take her seriously.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Kellor

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:25:13 AM PDT

  •  left my heart in 04 dixville notch, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    my debate take:

    Hillary Clinton emerged as the easiest to snap into place candidate, radiating cool confidence & steady after a stumble at the gate regarding the word liberal. Barack Obama has some sequences of sentences & thoughts that sound good but blow away like gossamer threads, very little substance on balance. His rock star video was a snoozer, but not as ill-advised as Hillary's take on Talking Subterranean Homesick Blues. It was too small for me to read so maybe it was good. The PTA mom thing can get grating.

    John Edwards hurt himself badly with the preacher, but also in his constant self-centeredness & tried to be cuttingly witty at the end about Hillary's jacket when actual gentility or at least being collegial was expected. While terrific on health care, and if I recall also good on Darfur, he shows himself to be an overeager student with a truly dismal video. Yeah that Rove tactic of go right for your own weaknesss & turn it into a strength thing doesn't always work.

    Biden was a surprise, in a pleasant way, for the most part but was somewhat mumbly. His reaction to the odd & jolting machine gun guy & wit were appreciated.

    Mike Gravel said the things so many on our side want to hear said - like "follow the money" & want something done about, but was so hurt & offended by the allotment of time & the annointed special glee club of the frontrunners that it got to him a bit & he came away a little like a grouchy old crank (sorry, Mike).

    Richardson just didn't register much on me either way- his own understated businesslike youtube video was perhaps the best one of the ones I saw. Chris Dodd got in a few good licks & otherwise kind of floundered. I once had a soft spot for Kucinich & in 04 thought there was a place for him at the table- now, not so much.

    The winners were the askers of the questions & one just wishes more time could have been alloted & that the candidates could be seated for the duration in a more comfortable extended setting & each allowed to answer the questions.

    The questions were tremendously better & the funny real artfulness & lack of artfulness & genuine weirdness & rawness were really a huge asset.

    Anderson Cooper did a good job for the most part as traffic cop, but it remains unclear as to why those selected to answer any given question were so chosen while others were not granted an opportunity. He stayed in the background, expediting- congrats Anderson.

    A lively debate. Eager to see more. But I wish there were a few different faces on that stage, I must say.

    Of those standing, I would choose Hillary. Based entirely on last night's debate, and most of that PTA stuff gets on my nerves pretty hard pretty fast.


    Oh for a Clark, a Gore, a Dean.

  •  has the whole world gone crazy? (0+ / 0-)

    hillary? are-you-kidding-me?

  •  Why isn't Gore under (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "not running"?

  •  For those who aren't in the top three... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    p.s. I voted for "No Freakin' Clue". I'm enjoying watching the campaigns without any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more of you would give it a shot.

    It's not an option with us.  It'd be great if everybody jumped in at the same time and with the same resources, but then that would separate out some from the front runners.  Oh well....

    Go Dennis and Co-Sponsors
    Kucinich 2008!

    Trust no organizaton bigger than two, and even those are suspect!

    by rjones2818 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:28:52 AM PDT

  •  Noooo! (0+ / 0-)
    Hillary beating out NFC! We need to step up the campaign...I guess it got a bad rap by boycotting the Youtube debate?

    We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

    by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:30:10 AM PDT

  •  Sigh... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, NeuvoLiberal

    I'm with you, Kos.  None of them have inspired me to get out and work the way I did for Dean.  Still stubbornly hoping for Gore.  

    Attacus Dove

  •  Edwards at lowest point in six months, Obama at (7+ / 0-)

    highest point in six months...i likey.

    Barack Obama '08: Because a Generation's Faith in Government Depends On It. Georgetown University Democrats Blog

    by klugerEsel5 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:30:12 AM PDT

  •  I now think Gore is not running, period. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The field is solidifying as-is... and doing so with a freakin' AMAZING record-breaking fundraising among the top two.  

    I get the sense Gore left the door open in case the field failed to inspire and connect.  But quite the opposite.... these candidates are strong beyond a doubt.

    That said I still would have loved to see an Al Gore candidacy.  For all the reasons that have been said so well on DailyKos a thousand times by a thousand people. I just don't think he has it in him to enter the contest and do the whole "hard slog" of a campaign season, not given the current landscape of excellent candidates and evident partisan enthusiasm for them.

    As I diaried last night, I am moving into the Hillary Clinton camp.  She was fantastic last evening.  But I agree, the big winner last night was We The People.  the YouTube format was great.. and I look forward to seeing how the Republicans handle it in September.  

    •  The candidates are better because of Gore (0+ / 0-)

      the prospect of Gore running has helped make the field more progressive than any other factor besides the netroots gaining foothold.

      If Global warming is a "planetary emergency," you have no choice but to run, Mr. Gore.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:41:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow! Hillary's candidacy is about to take off ;) (6+ / 0-)

    "Oprah, you're my girl." Barack Obama

    by PhillyGal on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:32:24 AM PDT

  •  Hear, hear! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plutonium Page, Lobsters

    I'm enjoying watching the campaigns without any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more of you would give it a shot.

    •  But how do you do that (0+ / 0-)

      if you've grown really fond of the candidate and believe in him or her?  You can't return to being an impartial observer.

      I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

      by chicago minx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:55:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I haven't become fond of any one candidate... (0+ / 0-) particular.  I keep an open mind about them all, as opposed to picking one and doing everything I can to abuse the others.

        If you have a favorite, that's fine by me...unless you feel you must abuse the other candidates in order to promote your own favorite.

        •  I'd go with any of them (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          as the nominee if it come to that.  I'm a pragmatist.  I also feel strongly that whomever wins the primaries will have won a tough race and deserves our support.  

          I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

          by chicago minx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:12:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary baby (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, masslib, Lobsters, Hairy Legs

    has consistently performed well at the debates and while I was initially VERY against her, she's grown to be my #1 choice.  I honestly dont understand all the hoopla surrounding John Edwards...I think its for the same reason Romney gets his support...much of it relating to look Presidential rather than anything substantive.  I do think he is a nice guy and he certainly has a lot of sympathy regarding his wife's cancer battle. but he had a lot of opportunities to do great things in the Senate and his Senate record is very blah as far as Im concerned.

    And to be quite honest, its hard to take a millionare seriously when they talk about poverty.  It may just be me being guarded and suspicious, but Edward's hasnt been the "son of a millworker" for a very long time.  And while I think his wife is actually more honest, and substantive, and affable, its his voice on the issue that counts, not hers.  

    I do think what we have going for us is the breadth of our candidates..they are all progressive...all inspiring, and all seem to have the cahones it would take to repair what has happened in this country during the last 8 years.  

    •  People root for the underdog... (0+ / 0-) politics as well as sports, as long as the underdog has not yet become a laughing stock (eg. the old Kansas City Athletics).

      People love to root against the Yankees.

    •  you're just an idiot (0+ / 0-)

      if you believe someone with money cannot care about poverty.

      •  wow...namecalling....very mature (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I was being candid and honest..and besides, I said that it was hard to believe, not that I didnt believe him.  The plain truth is that other than the internet, Edwards has little support and his campaign while not going badly, aint moving forward (look at the poll numbers--there is barely any movement).  If he wants to sit there and tell me he's against gay marriage but a better advocate for women than a woman herself--he's on crack. A true progressive would be an advocate for both. I think he's a nice man but I just dont think he's good Presidential material is all Im least based on his record, and how he has done at the debates.

        And while Im a very liberal person myself, Im smart enough to know that perceptions are viewed, especially during campaigns, as a reality.  And while I abhor GOP talking points, the argument of him being a hypocrite on poverty while spending so much for a freaking haircut, rings somewhat true.  Why wasnt Edwards at the gay parade..he had to send his wife...Again, I will reiterate, his wife is not running, he is. And for the record, I take as much stock in what Bill says about Hillary as I do Elizabeth about John.

        •  he is by far (0+ / 0-)

          the most progressive candidate in the race. thats all you need to know. gay marriage isnt some litmus test that you can apply to any politician to see if they are truly progressive or not.

          he is winning in iowa - thats all you need to carry yourself towards the nomination.

          while he may be third in the national polls, i would consider his first place polling in iowa to make him second behind clinton nationally.

          •  if Iowa is all you need... (0+ / 0-)

            then may God help us all....that is truy sad.  And besides, its more likely than not that his honeymoon in Iowa alone is going to tighten and be far more competitive.  In addition the other candidates having more resources to put into the state as well.

            I dont find Edwards to be so uber progressive...its an opinion and mine only. Ive been very clear that I was very anti-Clinton from the beginning but Ive given her a fair shake as I have John Edwards.  I wish you'd just be as honest but that doesnt seem to be the case. Its clear you've had your mind made up from the beginning regardless of the candidates.  And my opinion about the candidates, unlike some people, continues to evolve.

            All Ive contended is that Hillary is running a good campaign and doing well to stand out at the debates.  If your miffed that Im not supporting your guy, then tough.  I gave him a chance...hell I even gave him cash, but for me he hasnt come through saying what I want to hear and delivering. I dont think it merits namecalling or any stupid behavior.

            And gay marriage might not be important to you, but to those who are gay and have partners, its as fair a question as a worried mother assessing a candidates position on Iraq.  

  •  I will add to the white noise here... (4+ / 0-)

    with Edwards's words:

    "Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power! The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them!"

    and his YouTube:

    I watch so many scream here, yet when it really comes time to stand up, it just a bunch of talk.

  •  just a quick reminder about the polling: (0+ / 0-)

    It's not remotely scientific.

    If you suspend disbelief, you can squint a little and see that, because of the huge sample size, we might be getting a decent estimation of kossack opinion.  But small movements (4%, or whatever) month-by-month mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  We have no idea whether people are changing their minds, whether one camp is better at freeping the poll than another, or whether the newest kossacks (and lurkers) differ from the rest of us.

    Undecided, due to abundance of good choices. Interestingly, I've never heard a Republican say that.

    by cardinal on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:44:29 AM PDT

  •  I'm not rooting for any particular one, either (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hairy Legs

    I voted for Edwards; I won't cry if he loses.

    Hillary will make a great President, and I mean GREAT, mistakes and all; Obama would make a TERRIFIC Vice President; and Edwards will make the best Attorney General Ever.

    How can we actually root for one candidate over the other? I wish we could put them all in a blender and magically have them ALL serve. Even Biden...we need somebody for the laff factor.

  •  my own liberation experience (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Lager Lad, Hairy Legs

    I'll tell you what I've found liberating: my resolution to swear off mainstream media handicapping of the race,  the lobbying by various passionate netroots supporters of individual candidates, and, most importantly, any focus on my personal vibes about candidates' personalities, how they appear on television, etc. I'm reading their position statements and following media coverage of those positions, but I've largely sworn off the endless punditry. And Lord has that been refreshing.

    I'd say it's let to slightly increased appreciation of Clinton, a significant improvement in my opinions of Edwards, and at least for the moment, a cooling on what had been my passion for Obama. But it's very, very early.

  •  Hillary is showing she has the right stuff (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TeresaInPa, aaraujo, Hairy Legs

    despite the negative visceral reactions many had to her candidacy.  She's won me over (barring any catastrophe) and I was never a Hillary fan.  

    My prediction:  The ticket will be Clinton/Obama, and it will be a juggernaut the Republicans can't overcome.  

    It's all fun and games until the Vice President shoots someone in the face.

    by lightiris on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:55:36 AM PDT

    •  oh god its happening (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:

      people are starting to listen to the media that "hillary is our savior" and they are forgetting principles and all the bad things billy boy did for our party and country. hillary said she wasnt liberal. she hasnt apologized for iraq. she is a hawk. she has no healthcare plan. she is, um, a woman and, um, a clinton.

      •  not a hillary fan (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TeresaInPa, aaraujo, Hairy Legs

        but um...

        she is, um, a woman

        sexist much?

        We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

        by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:08:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  if you watched the debate last night (0+ / 0-)

          and heard the guy's question about how a woman president would deal with leaders from countries who do not even recognize a woman's role in society you would know what i am talking about. its not about being sexist - i love women! i just dont think america is ready for a woman president.

          •  That is a sexist comment in itself (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chicago minx, Hairy Legs, pamelabrown

            i love women! i just dont think america is ready for a woman president.

            Was the UK?  Was Isreal?  Was India and numerous other countries?

          •  Countries who don't recognize women (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jxg, Hairy Legs

            as leaders have to get used to US, not the other way around.

            I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

            by chicago minx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:18:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOL i dont think (0+ / 0-)

              hillary clinton is going to be the one who breaks down the islamic trends towards treating women as second class citizens. she will be a joke to them and we are never going to get anywhere (let alone out) of the middle east if she is our face at the negotiating table.

              •  We're supposed to pick a president based on (5+ / 0-)

                Islamic prejudice towards women?  If they don't like a female American president that's tough shit.  And btw HRC's not my first choice, but if she wins WE will have elected her, not the Middle East--and they had better get used to it.

                I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

                by chicago minx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:29:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  we elect (1+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:

                  people to deal with the issues facing the country. like it or not, thanks to 9/11, the middle east is certainly one of the issues facing our country and, when you step in the voting booth, you're supposedly supposed to ask yourself who would do the best job dealing with said issues. a woman in the middle east, to me at least and i could be wrong, is not the right person to deal with that.

                  •  Why do you think a woman (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jxg, Hairy Legs, kyril

                    is not the right person to deal with that?  Just curious.  

                    I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

                    by chicago minx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:37:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  scanman (5+ / 0-)

                    back away from your computer and rethink.  If I had enough troll ratings I would troll rate every single one of your comments in this thread.  How dare you suggest we can not elect the first woman president because

                    1.  The USA is too backwards compared to the rest of the world


                    1.  The Muslim world won't like it.

                    You are the one with a problem and you aren't going to continue to inflict it on the majority of the people in this country who happen to be female.

                  •  from Wikipedia (5+ / 0-)

                    There are many contemporary examples of women leading countries in which Muslims are a majority or a large minority. Remarkably, a majority of all Muslims in the world live in countries that have, at some time, elected women as their leaders.[citation needed] These countries include Indonesia,[89] Pakistan,[90] Bangladesh,[91], India, and Turkey[92].


                    "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

                    by CaptUnderpants on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:55:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Muslim countries have had women leaders... (4+ / 0-)

                    The questioner was ignorant. Turkey and Pakistan have had women Prime Ministers.

                    "It's time to turn the page" -- Obama'08

                    by LV Pol Girl on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:56:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Some countries will - but truthfully I doubt you (0+ / 0-)

                      will ever see it in some - like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Iran (for sure, Syria, Libiya, and even Jordan.

                      At least not in my lifetime.

                      •  Arab countries are not Muslim countries (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        As you can see from above comment with the Wiki post, Muslim nations have elected women leaders, but none are Arabs.

                        The countries you listed: Syria, Libya and Jordan are progressive when it comes to women issues, but are not democratic in their elections for national leader (despotism and nepotism at play for Syria and Libya). They do, however, have elected women serving in their legislative government.

                        "It's time to turn the page" -- Obama'08

                        by LV Pol Girl on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:44:36 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Are you forgetting that they follow Muhammad (0+ / 0-)

                          Where on earth are you getting the info on the WIKI?

                          Saudi Arabia:
                          The religion is Islam and follows Muhammad - and are call Muslims.

                          Islam is one of the world's great monotheistic religions. The followers of Islam, called Muslims, believe in one God (Allah in Arabic) and that Muhammad is His Prophet. Today, the worldwide community of Muslims, which embraces the people of many races and cultures, numbers nearly one billion. There are approximately two million Muslims in the United States.

                          Historically, Saudi Arabia has occupied a special place in the Islamic world as the very heartland of Islam. Indeed, it is toward the sacred Ka'abah in Makkah that Muslims turn devoutly in prayer five times a day. The Qur'an, the sacred scripture of Islam, was revealed and is universally recited in Arabic.


                          •  I think what LV Pol Girl meant was (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LV Pol Girl

                            ... that the phrase (or, in math/logic terms, the set) "Arab countries" is not synonymous with (the phrase / the set) "Muslim countries". Because: there exist Muslim countries which are not Arab countries, such as all the countries named in the passage quoted by Capt Underpants: Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Turkey. (Here India is a "Muslim" country in the sense that, although not the majority, a significant proportion of the country is Muslim.)

                            The Dutch children's choir Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “children for children”) is a world cultural treasure.

                            by lotlizard on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 03:20:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TeresaInPa, Hairy Legs

            its not about being sexist - i love women! i just dont think america is ready for a woman president.

            It's not about being racist! I have a black friend! I just don't think the town is ready for integrated schools!

            Fucking bullshit.

            You want to be a bigoted prick and put "she's a woman" on par with "she wasnt liberal. she hasnt apologized for iraq. she is a hawk. she has no healthcare plan."...go right ahead. but step the fuck up and OWN your sexist misogyny. Be honest with yourself. Please.

            We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

            by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:45:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  this kind of crap (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              from the other candidates' supporters is what makes me want to get out there and campaign for Hillary. I can't STAND her position on the issues. But it might almost be worth it, just to PISS PEOPLE LIKE THEM OFF.

              We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

              by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:56:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Resistance is futile. (0+ / 0-)

        You will be assimilated.

        "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

        by CaptUnderpants on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:44:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  troll rated (0+ / 0-)

        for saying she is not her own person and shouldn't be the nominee because she is a woman. Both are sexist remarks

        •  please don't troll rate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          it'll hide the whole thread, and this is an argument that needs to be seen, lest the meme be allowed to spread.

          We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

          by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:52:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you want to troll rate me (0+ / 0-)

            because i think a woman is going to be ill-recieved in the muslim world? is this stalinist russia? i do not like hillary clinton and i have made that very clear. this is not about hating women or being sexist - it is about politics. she is a hawk in a change election. she is a clinton in a change election. take your feminist rants elsewhere cause they arent warranted.

            •  no I don't (0+ / 0-)

              the comment you're responding to was a request that you not be troll rated. I disagree with what you're saying, but I think it needs to be seen and argued with.

              We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

              by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:23:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

                •  See above (0+ / 0-)

                  It's argued, respond if you wish.

                  We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

                  by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:30:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you cant (0+ / 0-)

                    send a woman to do what they believe to be a man's job and expect to get anywhere. its not just iraq. i think that job is easy enough - we just need to leave. but what about israel/palestine? iran? those on the muslim side of that debate have no tolerance for women. you really cant argue that when, in iran, women cannot even walk on the streets without wearing a fucking parka. those are the people she needs to deal with if we ever want to accomplish any progress in that region.

                    •  More bullshit (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Hairy Legs

                      Women in Iran
                      Ok, they're wearing jackets. probably because it's kind of chilly outside. But they don't look all that repressed to me.

                      The women's movement in Iran

                      Using the language of the religious/political leaders, they demand that the state live up to its promise of Islamic equality of men and women and do away with oppressive measures that for centuries have held Muslim women hostage and prevented Muslim societies from flourishing. The success of the Islamic revolution, they assert, is dependent upon its ability to break away from patriarchal practices and implement purely Islamic measures.

                      Doesn't sound so bad.

                      And how was Condi treated when she visited the Middle East?
                      Here's Condi visiting the Saudi embassy. Looks civilized to me.

                      What about Nancy Pelosi? She went to Syria, of all places!
             Why, here she is! In an open street market, un-veiled, along with her entire entourage!

                      Just because countries repress their own women (and Iran, by the way, isn't particularly oppressive at all; in fact, my daughter's father's dad's family is from Iran, and all the women in his family are marvelously highly-educated, outspoken, political and multilingual) doesn't mean they don't treat foreign dignitaries with the respect they deserve. Even if that were the case, that would be a problem to be fixed, not an issue to be avoided. Your argument, sir, is a strawman.

                      We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

                      by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:54:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Neanderthal (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      you cant send a woman to do what they believe to be a man's job and expect to get anywhere.

                      This is sexist bullshit.  What rock did you crawl out from under?  

                      It's all fun and games until the Vice President shoots someone in the face.

                      by lightiris on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:22:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  how convenient (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      for sexists.

            •  edit: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hairy Legs

              I assume it is my "feminist rants" you're trying to tell me to take elsewhere, and I'm sorry, but I won't. As much as I hate the woman, and as much as I despise the idea of her being our candidate, it has nothing to do with her being a woman.

              I object to the implication that simply being a woman is any sort of negative. Certainly it's not a negative on par with such things as being a war hawk or giving up on health care.

              We have never been at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

              by kyril on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:26:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  People have opinions - who set you up as Judge? (0+ / 0-)

          Are you trying to squelch free speech.

          I am really getting tired of some on KOS thinking they are the chosen few and they proceeed to sling out troll rates.

      •  I'm not listening to the media (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hairy Legs

        I'm listening to Hillary Clinton speak.  I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions, thank you very much.  

        It's all fun and games until the Vice President shoots someone in the face.

        by lightiris on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:19:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  watch Hillary get a post YKos bounce! (5+ / 0-)

    she's going to get points just for showing up, for being gracious, and for not being the evil triangulator some think she might be.

    i don't expect her to "win" the netroots... but she's going to patiently, methodically, keep improving.

    what would joe rauh do?

    by nbutter on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:03:53 AM PDT

    •  i'm think that many kossacks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hairy Legs

      and netroots don't like her because they have been trained not to like her by the RW media.  Self loathing kind of thing.

    •  you're probably right (0+ / 0-)

      The "inevitability" of her nomination that the MSM will keep repeating over and over will also eventually have some effect here too.

      "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

      by CaptUnderpants on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:20:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, that and she may be the best candidate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CaptUnderpants, masslib

        I've ever seen. I have never seen any campaign proceed with the skill and the grace her has.

        I think the real draw is that she is proving that she will not allow the Mighty Wurlitzer to run all over her as other candidates have allowed. And that is a huge plus on her behalf.

        You may not agree with her on everything, but I am confident that she can win the campaign and she's the only candidate I can say that about with historical reason.

        •  agreed (0+ / 0-)

          She's a hell of a campaigner -- she simply doesn't make any mistakes. At least we know she won't be Swift-Boated.

          But that gets to the question of electability. I'm not all for supporting a candidate just because we think s/he will win, especially not in the primaries. I would definitely work for, donate, and support Hillary in the general election if she were our nominee, but the primaries are about a battle of ideas IMO.

          "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

          by CaptUnderpants on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:42:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

            •  then maybe I didn't understand (0+ / 0-)

              Your point above?

              You seemed to be saying we should support her simply because we know she has a chance to win.

              "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

              by CaptUnderpants on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:57:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, the effectiveness of her campaign is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                drawing a lot of people in - and for good reason. But I'm big believer that primaries should be open competetive events and that no one should be shut out because they aren't electable.

                I think we should avoid voting for someone because we think they can win. But I think being a brilliant campaigner is something different from that - namely, it's a clarification of who the person is and how they perceive the opposition, in this case.

                I love Hillary, I love Edwards and I like Dodd quite a bit as well. I loved Edwards more than Hillary last night.

  •  our top 3 candidates are very impressive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hairy Legs, faolan

    I have been supporting Edwards...I have always liked Obama...and Hillary has really impressed me with her strong presence. We should all be excited about our candidates.

  •  all the above (0+ / 0-)

    I would be happy with all of the above as president, except Biden.  I wonder how that could be added to the poll and how many would vote for it. We have a great cadre of potentials--one even has cleavage--and all but Biden deserve our admiration.  Circumstances will dictate and congress will suppress presidential actions of a Dem president--as the constitution mandates.

    Edwards is my favorite at the moment, Obama would hopefully help race relations, and Hillary's hubby would be great for foreign relations--of a political nature.  The world needs healing, and Bill is the best at shmoozing.

  •  so anyone have an explanation for the Obama-surge (5+ / 0-)

    and Edwards-drop?

    Barack Obama '08: Because a Generation's Faith in Government Depends On It. Georgetown University Democrats Blog

    by klugerEsel5 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:12:38 AM PDT

  •  No emotional investment: good idea (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CaptUnderpants, jj32, Pegasus, pamelabrown

    I hitched my wagon to Bill Clinton's campaign in 1991 and was a wreck through the winter of 1992, and even yelled at a sitting US Senator (Don Reigle D-MI) who wanted to dump him that spring. He was a hyocrite who himself saw his presidential ambitions dashed because of an affair in the 70's.

    In 2004 I waited 'til we had a nominee and missed out on the excitement. This year I'm with Obama, but I like Hillary and Edwards enough that I won't be crushed if my guy loses.

    "You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis." - Tyler Durden

    by RandySF on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:13:24 AM PDT

  •  I'm strongly Hillary. I didn't start out there-- (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, Hairy Legs, Berkeley Vox

    well, actually I did start out there in the 90's with most of the other women I knew then.  But, then I was angry with her for her authorization vote, and I wasn't sure she would be a very good campaigner, but she has totally won me over.  

    It's a bit disappointing to see her only 4 points ahead of No F'ing Clue here.  I feel like I must not be watching the same campaign as everyone else.  

  •  no formatting on Safari (0+ / 0-)

    The table formatting you do with tt tags and spacing doesn't work at all on Safari. Is it really that hard to use an html table?

    "Instead of asking what you could do, you ought to have been asking what needs to be done."

    by khaavren on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:25:53 AM PDT

  •  kos, how about a follow up poll to measure debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    Same exact poll (same candidate ordering), posted at the same time of day, etc. just to see if there's any movement? It would probably be hard to separate from random statistical noise, but still it would be a fun exercise...

  •  Why did Edwards attack Hillary's clothes? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TeresaInPa, chicago minx, pamelabrown

    Edwards' comment last night ("I'm not sure about that coat") had to be the low point of this campaign.  Totally classless.

    Support the Clinton Climate Initiative

    by Berkeley Vox on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:29:53 AM PDT

  •  NFC '08! (0+ / 0-)

    I am also enjoying not having any emotional investment in the '08 primary campaigns.  As a recovering Deaniac, I find it quite refreshing.  After the Dean swoon, I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in a primary campaign again.

    I don't know where the candidates are getting all this money, but they're not getting it from me.  I have a kid in college, which means I'm broke, and will remain so for the next four years.  Note to DNC fundraisers - when I tell you I'm broke, I'm broke.  My kid needs my money more than you, and that's means I'm on the DL for the duration.  See me in 2012.

  •  Women. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hairy Legs

    Isn't it brilliant that the consensus (with which I agree) is that Clinton seems "the most presidential"?  She's currently my #2 or 3 pick, but without a doubt, she SCREAMS "president" more than any candidate from either party this season.  Cool.

    IMO, the only downside of a Clinton candidacy would be that she almost certainly wouldn't pick Sebelius for a VP.  I'm dying for Sebelius to be our VP, but I just know the Democratic operatives will put the kibosh on the demographics of a Clinton/Seb or an Obama/Seb ticket.  Honestly, I'm scared of who Clinton would pick... but I guess we can cross that road when we come to it!  Anyway, I'd be thrilled to vote for any of our top tier candidates.

    BTW, can we all PLEASE refer to her as Clinton and not "Hillary"?  This is her time, SHE is the "Clinton" now.  If you want to talk about Bill, say "Bill Clinton".  Thanks :)

  •  I watched with interest (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hairy Legs, Berkeley Vox

    Especially interested in my own and my wife's reactions to the candidates responses.

    In light of Kos' request for non-attachment, I found myself feeling curiously detached from them all.  While all had good things to say, some tried and true answers....stump points etc., I failed to pick up on anything that moved me to want to support one over the other.

    My wife is attracted to Obama's candidacy, and I have looked at Edwards as a smart and caring leader.  My reactions to them last night were different.  I came away feeling cooler about both Obama and Edwards, more appreciative of Hillary's gifts but no more supportive,  impressed with Biden's willingness to grapple with the devilish details, grateful for Gravel's crazy wisdom, bothered by Dodd's hammering oratorical style, bemused by Kucinich's loony energy, put off by Obama's coolness, distrusful of Edwards charm, bothered by Richardson's unclear answers, both impressed and unimpressed by them all at various times.

    I'm with Kos.  I'm agnostic at this point.  When I compare these folks to a couple of people who I'd like to see in the race...Gore and Clark...I'm left wondering who among them will have the guts, smarts and passion to really step up and out ahead of the rest, stop listening to the goddamn media and their 'consultants', and just be who they are all the time, whether in front of the camera or not.

    I enjoyed the format, though it did not lead to a substantive debate on any of the issues.  It did, however, highlight the strengths and challenges each candidate has when forced to think on his/her feet about the issues.  My own reluctance to get on any one bandwagon at this point is primarily a result of my belief that the best candidate has not yet joined the fray, and may never, in which case I'll probably support the one telling the most truth.

    The Marks of a Leader: Generosity, Integrity, Wisdom

    by Timothy L Smith on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:41:15 AM PDT

  •  I thought they all did a great job, Kos. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TeresaInPa, Hairy Legs, Berkeley Vox

    Like you I am watching and waiting.

    Must say, though, that Hillary surprised me. She was cool and well spoken. One could argue that she was well-indoctrinated, but after the disaster that is Bushco, a little preparedness was refreshing.

    I was least impressed with Obama, although he is certainly charismatic. Edwards seems a bit unsure, although on message. Richardson was very interesting and thinner... good for him!

    Poor Gravel got stomped on - old world v. new, I suppose - he's just not fast enough in our You-Tube world. And Kucinich made his points pretty well, although his jaw was working for most of the debate(ish) and the camera high-lighted it due to placement.

    Altogether, they were remarkably impressive.

    And so were the citizen questions.


    If you dance with the devil, then you haven't got a clue; 'Cause you think you'll change the devil, but the devil changes you. - illyia

    by illyia on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:42:14 AM PDT

  •  Hillary, up 200% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itstime, Berkeley Vox

    in three months.  The swoon begins.

  •  Hillary is still leading on the Debates... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Berkeley Vox

    Obama did do much better this time.
    Thought Biden was "spot on" also.

  •  Hillary = establishment; Edwards = progressive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StealthAmerica, America08

    I think that's your explanation right there.

    Hillary has the best ties to the establishment and the party apparatus - ergo the best fundraising.  Her stands on issues tend to be more slippery as they are defined by what best suits her on any given day.

    Edwards is a little more clearly defined by his progressive positions which connect with the traditional Kossack.  The real question is - if Edwards turns from underdog into frontrunner - will he become just like Hillary?

    •  Um, Obama has the best fundraising. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, Geekesque

      He has beaten HRC two quarters now.

      I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

      by chicago minx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:08:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Edwards was a moderate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, chicago minx, pamelabrown

      while in the Senate.  He was first to want to depose Saddam Hussein. He signed onto the patriot act.  He was the rising star inside the beltway.  When he ran for President in 2004, he didn't talk of poverty, rather helping rural folks.  Most of his campaign money came from big law firms.  He authorized the war and a year later complained so much money was going into the war.

      A person can change but if we believe Edwards is capable of such a transformation, than we should believe Mitt can do it also.

      Secondly with all Edwards happy talk, we have to ask how realistic and honest is he being with us.  I can't find a single bill he wrote and got passed while in the Senate.  

      So I'm thinking we're getting a little more realistic view of what can and cannot be done inside DC during the next Presidency.

    •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

      Her stands on issues tend to be more slippery as they are defined by what best suits her on any given day.

      I see Edwards fitting that description more than Clinton. In 2001, Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, then apologized for it a few years later. In 2002, he voted against an amendment which would have given ex-felons the right to vote, five years later he is telling the NAACP that we need to get ex-felons the right to vote. And then of course there is the Iraq war, which he supported in 02, 03, and 04, when it was relatively popular.  

      Barack Obama 08
      It's says a lot about conservatism when they have to add "compassionate" to it

      by jj32 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:25:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  HRC "Spectacular," "Presidential," "Wins Again" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TeresaInPa, Hairy Legs, KnowVox

    Media release from the Clinton campaign:

    The Raves Pour In: Hillary 'Spectacular,' 'Presidential,' 'Wins Again'

    When all is said and done, being president is about protecting the country. Through her comments on how to deal with hostile leaders like Kim Jong Il and Huge Chavez and what needs to be done to bring the troops home, Hillary showed that she has the strength and experience to deliver the change America wants starting on day one.

    SURVEY USA POLL -- AMERICANS 'WENT IN THINKING HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE THE BEST PRESIDENT...CAME OUT OF THE DEBATE EVEN MORE CONVINCED': "Americans who watched the YouTube Democratic Debate 7/23/07 on CNN went into the debate thinking Hillary Clinton would make the best President of the 8 Democrats on stage, and came out of the debate even more convinced, according to an exclusive SurveyUSA poll." The poll found Hillary won the debate by a large margin. [Survey USA, 7/23/07]

    DES MOINES REGISTER'S YEPSEN -- HILLARY 'COOL AND COGENT': "She's cool and cogent and bears up well under discussions about her being a woman and what she wears. Male politicians, journalists and YouTubers who focus on that just help her rally support from other women." [DesMoines Register, 7/24/07]

    DONNA BRAZILE -- HILLARY WAS 'SPECTACULAR...IN COMMAND OF THE FACTS': "I thought Senator Clinton had a great answer when she said when she said we must withdraw our troops safely, carefully and in an orderly fashion so I thought Senator Clinton not only gave a great answer to that question but overall her debate performance was spectacular. She was in command of the facts. She understood the issues." [CNN, 7/23/07]

    TIME'S JOE KLEIN -- 'A GOOD NIGHT' FOR HILLARY, 'JUDICIOUS AND PRESIDENTIAL': "Hillary Clinton--a good night....Clinton's pointing out that the groundwork had to be done was, dare I say it, judicious and presidential..." [Time, 7/23/07]


    ANDREW SULLIVAN -- 'HILLARY WINS AGAIN...SHE DESTROYED THE OPPOSITION TONIGHT': "Her response to the dynastic question - a difficult one - was the first time she has ever brought a smile to my lips...You know how much I hate to say this: but she destroyed the opposition tonight: out-classing it, out-debating it, and avoiding the usual pitfalls. I wish it weren't so, but it's what I saw. If she keeps this up, it's hers." [Andrew Sullivan, 7/23/07]

    MICHAEL CROWLEY'S NEW REPUBLIC -- 'BOTTOM LINE: GREAT NIGHT FOR HILLARY': But the one who stood out was Hillary. She shows really impressive poise and confidence, and didn't lose her stride even in the face of offbeat questions about her gender and voter fatigue with the Clinton and Bush families...Bottom line: Great night for Hillary. [New Republic, 7/23/07]

    BILL PRESS -- HILLARY WINS: "Forceful, in charge, good sense of humor." [CNN Scorecard, 7/24/07]

    CNN'S BILL SCHNEIDER -- HILLARY WINS: "Clinton had a very strong performance." [CNN Scorecard, 7/24/07]

    WASHINGTON POST -- HILLARY SOUNDED 'AS SHARP AS SHE HAS IN ANY OF THE PAST FOUR GATHERINGS: "Sounding as sharp as she has in any of the past four gatherings of the candidates, eagerly joined an exchange over immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq. She repeated her promise to end the war, adding: "But we want to do so safely and orderly and carefully." [Washington Post, 7/24/07]

    CHICAGO SUN TIMES' LYNN SWEET -- HILLARY 'HANDLED EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE WITH CALM CONFIDENCE. SHE EXUDED STRENGTH AND HUMOR: As in previous debates and forums, Clinton deftly handled everything and everyone with calm confidence. She exuded strength and humor. She made no mistakes. [Sun Times, 7/24/07]

    WASHINGTON TIMES -- HILLARY WAS 'CONVERSATIONAL...GOT BIG CHEERS': "Mrs. Clinton was quick to note each questioner's name and seemed conversational in her answers. She got big cheers in response to a question about whether her election would represent the change voters want because it would mean 24 consecutive years of presidents named either Bush or Clinton. 'Well, I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000,' she said."[Washington Times, 7/24/07]

    Support the Clinton Climate Initiative

    by Berkeley Vox on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:48:36 AM PDT

    •  Are you telling me that her press release is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, chicago minx, Berkeley Vox

      favorable?  Get out! :)

      •  How can her press release and Obama's press (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, jj32, pamelabrown

        release both be right?

        Reviews from the Voters are in...Obama Wins Debate

        CNN: Randi Kaye on Focus Group Votes for Debate Winner: "When the debate ended the same group moving meters actually rated each candidates’ overall performance. And here is how they staked up take a look, Obama, Biden, Edwards, and on the bottom Clinton, Anderson back to you." [Image: Who do you think performed the best during the debate you just viewed?: Obama 33%,Biden 21%, Edwards 17%, Clinton 8%]  

        Fox News South Carolina Focus Groups (Frank Luntz): "He is off the charts.  I mean, this is as high as it can go. He’s explicit.  He has drawn the contrast.  He has hit a home run. What I would like to do is I want to play for you the sound of what they had to say about Barack Obama so you can really understand it's not that he is a good politician and not his experience.  It's as much his presentation and more importantly it's that he seems to represent people rather than politics.  If you guys back there can roll the sound, this is why Obama will be shown as the winner of tonight's debate." [Video]

        CNN New Hampshire Focus Groups (Mary Snow): "We're here with 24 Democrats, independents, who thought that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the best performer here tonight, but the results that we just got in, this is a focus group, show that Barack Obama got the most favorable in terms of the best performance from the 24 people who are here tonight." "Senator Barack Obama was showing some favorable responses to his answers. Some of the things that he got favorable responses were when he talked about fighting lobbyists, particularly on health care."

      •  what else would it be? (0+ / 0-)

        the question is, can you find a major news outlet who thinks anyone else won the debate?

  •  Edwards is the only real vote for change. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StealthAmerica, edgery, America08

    Hillary and Obama are so clearly tainted by Washington politics, I just can't vote for them in good conscience. Edwards debate after debate shows what it is to break from the party BS, and truly lead.

  •  read this now (0+ / 0-)

    and open your eyes.....

  •  Obama, N. Korea, Iran, etc (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edgery, okamichan13

    I want to stress-- before I say anything about Sen. Obama here-- that I like him very much.  I would be very happy to vote for him in the primary and general election.  Having said that....

    My discomfort with Sen. Obama's answer re: meeting with leaders of Iran, N. Korea, et al, has less to do with strategy...and more to do with his reading of history.

    To compare either of these countries today to the USSR of the Cold War seems, to me, to be inaccurate.  

    The USSR was a superpower; these are rogue states hoping for anything to enhance their stature on the world stage.  The Soviet Union was not in need of showing its legitimacy; they did not need the imprimatur of a bilateral meeting with the US president-— whether JFK or Reagan-- to demonstrate their stature.  To me, that's a major difference that Obama seems to miss.  

  •  I am supporting Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hairy Legs

    I can't wait to see her at the convention.

  •  The best debate formats have not been on TV. (0+ / 0-)

    At the risk of sounding like cranky Mike Gravel, ("you kids get out of my yard!"),
    I don't think these so-called debates serve any of the candidates. I thought the ACORN debate offered a better way to compare them. Everyone came out one at a time and answered the same questions, with enough time to completely answer. Was this on television? Of course not!

    These televised debates don't do what they are supposed to do.

    I support Edwards. I thought he showed a lot of the Edward's fight in the debate last night. I have supported him since he first ran for the Senate, and I've seen enough of him to know that he is a fighter, and also that he is a very honest and down to earth person. The main reasons I support him do not show up in a debate. I support him because I know personally that he talks about the same issues everywhere he goes.

    Did you know that he lets certain people know that they don't have to wait for mimimum wage to be passed, that they can step up and start paying their employees more right now....? I solidly believe that he has a good heart to go along with his leadership abilities. I want that in my president.

  •  Focus groups rate Edwards' forcefulness in SC (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StealthAmerica, bettync

    Today, the day after, various focus groups are reporting in from NV, NH, et al - those who scored the remarks with a LINE GRAPH as they were being delivered.
    John Edwards in his more forceful comments from the SC debate with U-Tube questions was consistently given good rankings upwards of 90% by those scoring the responses live in the focus groups.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site