Once again, Dean is FIRST, like always. . . .

w00T!!

6:00 pst

67.

Michael,

I really don't give a damn what you think.  Or if you are nauseated.  If you want to live in a world of cynicism go ahead.  I don't choose to

========================

I like you Mike, but you do sometimes talk as if you have an arthropod lodged in your rectum

Very little daylight between the two.  Good debate.  HC's ahead a small bit. I like her health care policy and immigration stance better than his.

He voted for Mukasey and that's very troubling.  Neither one seems to have a grasp on telling the good guys from the bad.  Poor judgment of character.

Puddle's first.

Right? She said she was, "New thread, where I might be first"

Of course she is, and I know we all agree, because the truth is self evident.

9:08EST

The Dem debate tonight seems good to me, but I'm a Dirt Farmer 

For any of you people out there who are able to watch this impartially, HC is sounding damn good.  I'm very impartial cuz my guy(s) are gone and I'm pretty much done with those who are left. 

So far my questions haven't been addressed.  The environmnet, I/P, Pakistan, lobbies on the Hill.  I'm sure there are more........

Very little daylight between the two.

Definitely not much daylight between them in the polls I keep hearing about. I won't be surprised if Obama cleans the Clintons' clock on Tuesday.

really seashell, don't you have any idea how Hillary and her crew of DLCers ( Carvel etc) will destroy the progressive movement that Howard Dean started?

Guess which constellation is high in the sky, as our Dems debate the future?

 http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1okMwQ7QOKztNM:http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/images/jpg-100dpi-10in/19thCentury/Aspin/1825/Aspin-1825-Orion.jpg

fer god's sake, HC, say you made a mistake in the war vote and be done with it.

Don't like either one of them. 

In all fairness, if you throw out Hillary's votes with the worst of Bush's agenda from 2001-2005, Hillary and Obama aren't that far apart on their records. And if you throw out Hillary's attempts to portray Obama as a crack dealer and the candidate of African Americans, they aren't that far apart on character either.

 just want to say, "Hello down there"

Just popped in and, if things keep going as they have been, this post will NOT pop up under Holly J's, where it should.

I am not a Hillary supporter but I do think that there is more than a bit of hysteria when some people here insist that Hillary and her crowd will destroy the progressive movement that Howard Dean started. Please get a grip.

It is a fact that there is not all that much daylight between HC and BO. The one clear bright line on Iraq is that Barack was not in Congress to vote in 2002. His actions since have been disppointing, however. Hillary did not learn from her first vote and should have.

Another clear bright line for me is that Hillary voted for Kyl-Leiberman. VERY bad idea. Barack voted against.

Although it is Hillary that has a paragraph in her issues section about how the interests of Israel are important to the US and Barack does not, I frankly don't believe that there will be much difference between them on I-P issues.

Both of them love this country and both of them have spent much of their lives in public service. Both of them BELIEVE in pulic service.

Unless you believe that we progressives are simply wimps who will accept being destroyed, let us please quit repeating this neocon meme about Hillary destroying the progressive movement. Let us not do the Rethugs' work for them.

Howard has started a movement that has grown even beyond the wildest imaginings. You cannot imagine, for example, what he has done to energize the millions of ex-pats abroad and we are no small group or one without influence. We will NOT be disregarded by any politician ever again. It is up to each of US to ensure that whichever of the potential candidates is the nominee understands that we are here, that We The People will no longer be trifled with and that we will not stand for politics as usual.

That is OUR responsibility.

As Howard keeps telling us, it IS up to us.

Yes, Holly, I didn't say I was going to vote for her.  I'm looking at the debate itself.   Besides, we JE's supporters have been saying that w/o JE in the race, HC has a lot less chance.  Now she has a better one.   BO supporters have no one to blame but themselves if she wins the nomination.  Her chances increased hugely after JE left.

Actually the debate is boring....important things not being addressed...now trivia is.  Cripes. 

Barack just kicked Hillary's butt on Iraq. *It's important to be right on day one*.

less s/b better.  W/O JE, HC is in a good place to win. 

Sorry for all the misspellings & typos in my last ... my fingers tend to get carried away.

Judy, well said. 

His pro vote on energy and hers on the war are both troubling.

Here we go...talking about a "dream ticket."  Prepare yourselves, BO supporters.   

Ya, Paine, I *wuz* first till I tol' the rest of ya'll, lol! Think they'll fix this in the waning two hours of January? Or has we been, gasp, lied to again?


9:47 pm EST

Nice one Judy.  Yeahr! ;-)

gasp !!!

The impact of JE leaving on Hillary and Obama is an interesting debate.

My own family, for example, voted for JE in Florida. If he would not have been in the race, my sister would have voted for Hillary, my dad would have voted for Obama.

Health care and immigration...the only things addressed.  I guess other issues don't count.  What a bore it turned into.  And on those two issues, there's very little difference.

Tuesday is a chance for the American people to have the power and vote for JE, on the ticket or not.  These two people are pretty much twins.  We deserve better.  We could have done so much better than this.

Cordial, boring, mostly superficial.  However, they're better than what we have...not saying much is it?  Flip a coin and go vote.  :-)

And if you throw out Hillary's attempts to portray Obama as a crack dealer and the candidate of African Americans, they aren't that far apart on character either. 

___

Hilarious. 

I do like Barack's willingness to talk with leaders even when they are not our *friends.* That is one reason that he has a slight edge with me right now.

The failure even to listen respectfully has been a major reason for so many of our foreign policy gaffes and failures.

If Clinton really keeps to that hard-line stance, it does not bode well.

Well, gone now ... and puddle, wherever your post ends up, you are first in our hearts here, together with Howard.

Well, gone now ... and puddle, wherever your post ends up, you are first in our hearts here, together with Howard.

Soory for the double ... now really gone.

I doubt Hillary and crew will destroy us progressive Judy but they sure will make it a lot harder.

Many, many new people have been drawn in to politics with Obama. The Obama yahoo group that I am a part of sounds so much like we did with Dean 4 years ago.


I feel with Obama, the people will remain invested in the political process. This is truly important to the revival of our democracy.

Funny that Hillary's recent Iran vote did not come up

Actually, Holly, JE in the race was siphoning off enuf delegates to keep HC from getting 50 plus 1, the nomination.  JE could have been kingmaker and pulled the party even more, if possible, to the left.  It could have been a very interesting convention...maybe even Gore would or could have been nominated.  We'll never know now....

There's so little difference between them, how does one decide?  Not the war...BO keeps voting to fund it.  Drivers licenses?  Has it come down to drivers licenses?

bbl maybe 

Wind has been out of my sail for quite a while now...going local with what energy I have left...bye all

Wolf Blitzer is spinning his brains out over a Democratic dream ticket Obama/Clinton or the other way that I'm not going to type out loud.

Why is Wolf peddling this slant so obviously hard?

Yeah, Wolf. Castro thinks it's a great ticket too. I believe he was quoted saying so in the press.

Obama/Napolitano

HC's commitment to women and children is appealing, but she needs to control.  I like BO saying that he would put very good people in the Cabinet but I laughed at his idea for citizen participation on CSPAN. Maybe i heard that wrong.

Neither one has an edge yet for me. 

fer god's sake, HC, say you made a mistake in the war vote and be done with it.

Don't like either one of them

=======================

7:14 pst

should be 33.

Hard for Hillary to apologize after her recent show of Machismo on Iran

test

My grades for tinites debate........................

Foreign policy    Obama   C      Hillary D

Domestic issues  Obama C+   Hillary  B

Demeanour, candor    Obama B   Hillary C-

Final Grades    Obama B-   Hillary C

Hillary won the debate tonight on my scorecard, if you assume the polls right and she is the national front runner,  and he had to distinguish the differences and she could blur them. quick what was the difference in any of their plans? if it was health care she won

Reed in VT

Be well, and don't be a stranger.

 "I feel with Obama, the people will remain invested in the political process. This is truly important to the revival of our democracy. "

Yup.  What Holly said.


 

 quick what was the difference in any of their plans? if it was health care she won  

>

Good, Phil. 
I saw only the first half, but I think she scored far better on the "immigration" issue.

Yup.  What Holly said.
>

Right, donna.   Obama draws the movement with him, and I'm not at all keen on waiting 8 years if Hillary wins.  Yet, Hillary was, from what I caught, two-thirds of a grade better than Barack (comparisons with Mike "the predicktor" welcome).

BO supporters have no one to blame but themselves if she wins the nomination.  Her chances increased hugely after JE left.

In case anyone doesn't get this remark, I think it says that Obama's supporters could have stopped Hillary by supporting Edwards instead.

Of course, if Obama wins big on Tuesday a new tack will have to be take. 

Wind has been out of my sail for quite a while now...going local with what energy I have left...bye all

We all know how that feels.~
It's the eternal fight between logic and feeling.

When will we be able to reconcile?

And then there are principles.
My principles don't allow me to vote for Clinton.

This of course is against all logic.

Actually, Holly, JE in the race was siphoning off enuf delegates to keep HC from getting 50 plus 1, the nomination.  JE could have been kingmaker and pulled the party even more, if possible, to the left.

For someone who described yourself just a few days ago as a "reluctant" Edwards supporter, you remain curiously obsessed with him.

You don't have to jump on Obama's or Hillary's bandwagons, but it's time to realize that Edwards' wagon has no wheels and all the coulda-woulda-shouldas won't put them back on.

Yup.  What Holly said.

Just voted on moveon's site - for Obama. I said I don't share the same principles as Hillary and she would probably deep six Howard's 50 state strategy as well as some other reasons. I also think Barack will actually listen to people. We don't need another authoritarian president.period.

7:49 PST - who knows where this post will end up.

Edwards had to compete against "history"; two "historic" choices, and as such didn't have a chance, although he had a long enough run to make them both offer health care plans. If it does happen that this country moves to universal health care his effort will have not been in vain.

now comes the tough decision

which view of "history" do we want to write, well I don't want to disappoint my sisters out there,but if Obama wins the primary I don't think he is going to want to burden himself with the Clintons

Holly J wrote, " revival of our democracy"

> that's a good line.   

thanks for the link to the speech Monica, I remember hearing parts of it on NPR, I would feel better about our Professor of Constitutional Law if he would reference it

Hillary talks about the disadvantaged people in our society and I'm sure is sincere in her empathy in wanting to right those wrongs, but Bill's collaboration put the tilt in that table

I don't want to go back there, and neither does a majority of voters I fear.

so I decline to support Hillary, even though as Judy says the consequences of the likes of voters and party members like me making that decision are dire with four more years of R

I'm not where Reed is yet, but I'm getting there.

boy it sure is hard to have any kind or orderly conversation here. When someone says they agree you have no idea what they are talking about. LOL

It is a paine. We are supposed to be in the 21. century?

11:03 pm paine posting time  Oops again...11:04

10:07 CST

Neil Young - Heart Of Gold        http://hypem.com/track/467966

I complain about bad money driving out good with our trade with China and then perform the function of bad money here with my spelling and grammar.

Wolf Blitzer is spinning his brains out over a Democratic dream ticket Obama/Clinton or the other way that I'm not going to type out loud.

Why is Wolf peddling this slant so obviously hard?

Because you couldn't fill a thimble with the imaginations of all the wags combined. They can only repeat the propaganda they're faxed by various entities -- mostly conservative.

A good one going around for the past few days in the CM is that Huckabee is helping McCain by dividing the hardcase conservative vote with Romney. Think about it.... these are nuts who think Mormons worship satan and that Massachusetts is a province in Red China -- and they'd vote for Romney if weren't for Huckabee.

But why bother thinking when they can regurgitate faxes from the Ronmey campaign to explain why he hasn't been able to buy the nomination? 

screw even local politics Reed there is a ball game this weekend and nobody will be paying attention til after the game anyway

take the points

well no, not you who vote with your hearts not your heads, lol

party on

"buying the nomination" is exactly what they should harp on when running against him.

When Obama was running for Senate, there was this guy named Hull who tried to buy his way in. He hired tons of young people to shout for him and put up hundreds of sign us. What really took him down was his ex-wife saying he was a sex pervert. Wonder if that wouldn't have happened if he really could have bought his way in.

Hopefully money is not enough, you need a good candidate

Well, I guess it will be Clinton, Obama or a Repug. I guess Obama would be better than Bomb,bomb Iran.

boy it sure is hard to have any kind or orderly conversation here.

 Since when was there ever an orderly conversation here?

I think the essence of community is conversation..
some prefer an orderly conversation, some like it wild.

Our survival depends on communication. We have the power. But we need to share it with each other.

Communication is sharing.

Let's see Holly is at 61 - just testing where this post lands.

Clinton still reminds me of the kid in class who is antsy to answer every question, ask every question and won't shut up during these debates. *I know, I know, let me answer*. Gets to me.

The indigenous

v

The newcomers

Neil Young - Cortez The Killer        http://hypem.com/track/425827

Man, it's tough to be thrown back to the old ages.

 11:31 pm bfa time

Hi Folks,

I enjoyed reading the responses.  I think there is a huge difference in how the two candidates think.  One is top down, controlling; the other is a new paradigm of citizen participation, bringing all stake holders to the table.

A description of the new paradigm is all the stake holders sit on one side of the table, the issue or problem is on the other side.  This is Obama's mode.

The old paradigm is you sit opposing groups opposite each other; this is confrontation and compromise, the old paradigm.  This is HIllary Clinton's mode.

I thought the debate was very good.  I wonder if peple picked up on the very different mindsets.

NIght all.  Yawn. 

Just about to turn in, but David Letterman is riffing away on Mitt Romney ...

" .... he looks like a ringmaster ...

he looks like a tennis pro at a restricted country club ..."

and more along that vein.

Sigh ... !

Wish that I felt more like laughing.

'Nite now.

11:42 pm EST

and Puddle is first, I heard.

Night.

I really have a tough time with this blog. Posts seem to wonder around.

11:45 EST

Iraqi Troops Mass for Operation in Mosul

By ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: January 31, 2008

......The Army began an investigation last week into the deaths of “several” Iraqis after they had been detained on the battlefield by American soldiers, an Army spokesman said in an e-mail message on Tuesday.

Army criminal investigators are trying to determine how the Iraqi detainees died and how many, if any, soldiers were involved in the deaths, which appeared to occur at the time of the Iraqis’ capture during a combat operation, the spokesman said.

“Several alleged deaths is what we know at this point,” said the Army spokesman, Paul Boyce. The episode occurred south of Baghdad last spring or summer and involved soldiers from the Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, he said.

--------

If this is true, I wonder what they mean by several....20,30,75,100? Was this a massacre?

The Big Red One.

7 minutes for them to keep their promise to fix the blog in January. . . . going. . . .going. . . .

11:53 pm EST

This sweep by The Big Red One might have been post-surge. This has to rank right up there with Vietnam in terms of tragic....both for the US and the host country....Tragic.

Where are the WMD?

7 minutes for them to keep their promise to fix the blog in January.

Did they say January of which year? 

PBS now.  Judy Garland.  God, what a voice!

Alleged "SEVERAL" dead detainees....this is the first I heard of this.

I would like to hear "good" news come from that mistake, but we must report what happens on the Iraqi battlefield.

12:20 am EST GONE!!

Did they say January of which year?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Come to think of it. . . . . I doubt so. Just weasel words from our Leader?

12 BILLION dollars a month for the QUAGMIRE while the War Parties seek to deny 20 MILLION elderly Americans a tax rebate check. It just doesn't make any sense.

Watch this video PLEASE.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2...

"buyer's remorse"

"Prepare yourselves, Obama supporters"

"BO supporters have no one to blame but themselves if she (HC) wins"

"A nation that rallies behind rock stars. That is what we have become"

"We'll get what we deserve"

Just bringing the facts - LMAO. I see it as unproductive and useless negativity. How about something positive for a change, broken record?

skip, skip, skip, scratch, blah, blah, blah

I would prefer Carol Mosley-Braun, but maybe Cynthia McKinney is another good choice.  I would have to know much more about her.

Anyway, here's this:

Things in the presidential horse race are lining up pretty much as one might expect - from a corporate perspective anyway.

The decks are being cleared to limit debate and blur focus. The remaining "viable" candidates now include John McCain who says we will be in Iraq for 100 years, Hillary who I once saw on "Face the Nation" saying "The American people need to relax, we are going to be in Iraq for a long time," and Mr. Obama who is now being "sold" to the public as the change agent. I still maintain that Hillary will be the Democratic party nominee and her choice for vice-president will be Obama. Don't expect anything from them. This thing is being scripted.

Kucinich supporters in Maine are feverishly sending emails around urging each other to still stand for him in the up-coming Maine caucus. The progressive Dems, as they call themselves, have a real challenge now to justify staying in that corrupt party. But most of them will likely find a way to do so as they delay the inevitable reality that their party is now a corporate appendage and virtually nothing more. Kucinich is being shoved out of the party for having dared run for president and speaking out against the Iraq occupation, for single-payer health care, and for impeachment. The Dems will now do to Kucinich what they did twice to Cynthia McKinney - run corporate controlled and "acceptable" candidates against him.

As an organizer I have a very practical question. How do we use this presidential campaign to keep our key issues in front of the American people? Hillary-Obama aren't going to do it.

I can only come back to Cynthia McKinney and her run for the Green Party nomination. We know that she will have the ability to bring peace activists, social justice activists and people of color together in a serious issue campaign. How can we ignore that?

We've reached the edge of the cliff in America. The corporate goons are ready to give us a push. Should we still be standing there debating whether the Democrats are going to come save us or dig in and save ourselves?

We have been playing defense much too long. The time has come for us to play their game on our terms.

http://www.space4peace.org

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_k__080131_on_the_edge_of_the_c.htm 

So what are our 2 cands doing about this? 

Mac McKinney: The Iraqi Holocaust Continues while America Rubs Lidocaine on Its Conscience.

Dan Shafer: I Will Reluctantly Vote for Obama. Here's Why

Stewart covered this tonight.  The horse race is eclipsing the real news.   Pity.

Signing Statement Silence This week President Bush signed the Defense Authorization bill into law, and then added a statement announcing his right to violate these four provisions. And the silence is deafening.The House of Representatives maintained a total and absolute silence. And activist groups followed suit. And they look like fools or hypocrites. All of them.

The Truth About The Debates (A Video) Check this out. Aren't you tired of being manipulated by the "media"?

ISRAEL/LEBANON: Probe of '06 War Ignored Civilians DeathsA leading international human rights group is calling into question the findings of an Israeli inquiry into the Jewish state's war with Lebanon in 2006.

Why aren't our cands talking about THIS?

When asked how they'd pay for health care, neither one suggested that maybe we should bring the troops home.  That would free up billions of dollars.  Never mentioned it at all. Zip.  Nada.

Nite, bloggie dears. 

5.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5m_A_As...+the+lion+constellations&source=web&ots=jNtSYErTRg&sig=YQwJnuwTNT4iNYiArjDwTlLvEwM

Good morning, everybody

Well, it loks like the blog is degrading faster then radiation.  I don't know why I said that.I'm just seeing a response to #5 at #95.  Oh, and it's 4:19 AM EST

Clearly, we didn't stay up for the debate.  The News Hour had all the Repubs. 

You do know that a rebate means that you paid too much in the first place, right?  And that what you got wasn't worth the cost, so you're being bought off.  The big problem we have in this country is that our corporations have become addicted to failure.  The failed presidency of Bush Two is just the most glaring example.

Thanks for keeping a copy of Justice Kennedy's speech, Monica. during my lifetime many trillions of dollars have been spent to prove might makes right, even as it is the antithesis of the true values of the country.

I won't be supporting War Party lite against War Party.

and I hope Obama supporters won't be expecting any sympathy here after the way they treated Edwards supporters

we are to the lesser of two evils stage

Obama needed a big win in that debate to inspire Edwards supporters to flock to him. I hope others saw it differently than I did

and I hope Obama supporters won't be expecting any sympathy here after the way they treated Edwards supporters

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well said Phil,

You and I have been here a long time, and I must say as a non supporter of either candidate in this race, the almost childlike, self supporting and almost venomous attitudes of many, not all but many now Obama supporters here, people that were dean supporters 4 years ago, has been, IMO very , well................disappointing at best. Quite distasteful and very republicsn like. Sure there was a sprinkling of Edwards supporters here, good people that were in our "big tent" for dean but i actually think they wre the far more mature and stately than SOME of the Obama gang...............the Edwards people seemed to easily be able to separate reality from kid like fanstasy about their candidate..didnt treat their guy like some rock star or God like Messaih who was going to whisk himslef into the WH and immediayely cure all their ills and the problems in the world...............

In short, I recall on CSPAN a Bush supporter, a woman, called in about 5 years ago as Bush was almost acting hysterically how anyone could even question the "transmitter to God"(Bush).

Loyal, fervent support of a candidate is one thing...............the rest speaks for itself.

When asked how they'd pay for health care, neither one suggested that maybe we should bring the troops home.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

sea,

Or that this country spends more on defense 20x more than anybody else in the world..they failed to mention maybe we can start cutting back the military say 10 fold and that will help pay for health care..but no, musnt upset the military industrial complex.

Coming soon to a Republican Talking Point near you:

National Journal has published its 2007 ratings of U.S. Senators, and lo and behold, Barack Obama is dubbed the "Most Liberal Senator."

This brought back some memories for me, because four years ago I got involved in a complex and heated argument with the NatJo folks (largely offline) about the same designation awarded to Sen. John Kerry, who by a strange coincidence, was also running for president that year. [...]

@

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/

Phil wrote "we are to the lesser of two evils stage"

Now I'm impaled on the horns of a dilemma.  Phil thinks of Obama as the lesser of two evils, and Caroline Kennedy believes he will be the first president to inspire her the way people tell her that her father inspired them. 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/013024.php

OBAMA'S THE #1 LIB?....Be prepared to hear about this, over and over again, for quite a while. If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, it will be the staple of every Republican stump speech between now and Election Day.

[...]

Taking a closer look at this year's results, Obama and Joe Biden were both considered more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders. This, alone, should make one wonder about the reliability of the rankings.

[...]

(blah,blah,blah)

But none of that is going to matter for the rest of the campaign. The Republican National Committee has already issued a statement and, one assumes, every far-right outlet in the country will soon do the same.

[...]

Mike wrote "the almost childlike, self supporting and almost venomous attitudes of many, not all but many now Obama supporters here, people that were dean supporters 4 years ago, has been, IMO very , well................disappointing at best. Quite distasteful and very republicsn like."

Then there's the nonsupporters.

7:11 am EST

Phil wrote "we are to the lesser of two evils stage"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hillary versus McCain

that was a must win debate for Obama last night

he had to win over four out of five Edwards supporters not two out of three

How 'bout we issue a statement and repeat at every opportunity:

The Republican National Committee is a lying sack of s#^! organization

Phil wrote "Hillary versus McCain"

Obama vs. Romney

and I hope Obama supporters won't be expecting any sympathy here after the way they treated Edwards supporters

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well said Phil,

You and I have been here a long time, and I must say as a non supporter of either candidate in this race, the almost childlike, self supporting and almost venomous attitudes of many, not all but many now Obama supporters here, people that were dean supporters 4 years ago, has been, IMO very , well................disappointing at best. Quite distasteful and very republicsn like. Sure there was a sprinkling of Edwards supporters here, good people that were in our "big tent" for dean but i actually think they wre the far more mature and stately than SOME of the Obama gang...............the Edwards people seemed to easily be able to separate reality from kid like fanstasy about their candidate..

...

+++

Michael -

You're in good company -- a guy named Bill angrily said about the Obama campaign that it's a "fantasy".

I thought you were more mature than Bill, now I'm not so sure.

Obama is a great candidate, but he can't be in two states at once.

oh well, we have a "historic" candidate in Hillary and lord knows women have paid their dues too

7:17 AM EST

I simply get amazed at all the things that Obama gets told on this blog about what he "must" do (I don't recall that being said that often for any other candidate).

disregard my sour grapes you Obama folk but you had better not be blogging you need to get your tails down to HQ and volunteer at the phone banking

This is what we might say to Tim Russert:

"Tim, you might run for POTUS" since you think your so smart and cough/cough/cough are "looking out for the little guy"

7:21 AM EST

I don't take orders and already have been doing quite a bit for the candidate.   

If Obama pulls it off it will be a grasroots bottom up victory and change politics forever so of course I'm rooting for him. seriously ,supporters, go sit on that metal folding chair brought in just for you and read the script. and no that is not a contradiction because they need to track responses as they come in

go get 'em

do NOT call during the game

7:27 AM EST

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog

Debate Reactions: Obama the Clear Winner

...

Time (Halperin): Tenaciously drove his four core issues (change, unity, inspiration, problem solving), and incorporated them into almost every answer. LINK

Atlantic (Marc Ambinder): … I’ll give Obama the edge LINK 

MSNBC (Richard Wolffe): …This was by far his best debate

NBC (Chuck Todd): … And then came Iraq and Clinton once again showed why the issue has been such an Achilles heel. Obama just has an easier time talking about his position. Clinton has to sit there and re-explain why she was for it and why she's not for it now. LINK

Politico (Ben Smith): “Obama's comfortable turf”: His trump card is his vote against the war, and he's moved toward a new argument for why it's relevant. "I think I will be the Dem who will be most effective in going up a John McCain...because I will offer a clear contrast," he says. "I don’t want to just end the war, I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place." LINK

Gallup's national tracking poll had Clinton ahead of Obama by 20 points 12 days ago.  Ten days later, the candidates were 4 percentage points apart.  What should the candidates think of this trend line?

CONGRESS:

(jus' the analysis, please)

http://tinyurl.com/2h7wmr

[..] Democrats start off even with Republicans (45 to 46 percent) in a challenging battleground that Republicans won by a 10-point margin in the past two elections. These named long-term incumbents are at only 46 percent on average – and are behind in the most competitive 20 seats. But in this Republican territory, the Democrats have a more positive image and more voters are winnable for them than for Republicans. By a 9-point margin, voters here prefer to elect a new Democratic candidate to bring change than to reelect their current member.

[...]

Elections ultimately represent a choice between two candidates or two positions on a given issue. In this survey we presented respondents with several definitions of the upcoming election and asked them after each one if it was a difference that would make them more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Virtually all of the definitions of the election result in majority support for the Democratic candidate. Nonetheless, our regression model showed that certain definitions are more effective than others in predicting the Democratic congressional vote:

• Advocates of the middle class: Pairing support for the wealthy or special interests instead of the middle class and listening to the people are definitions that will increase Democrats’ advantage. This is especially true in suburban and urban districts, where a choice between the wealthy and the middle class leads nearly two-thirds of voters to vote for the Democratic candidate.
• Problem solvers: More than one third of voters are much more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress when the choice in the election is framed as setting the priorities abroad or at home, or comparing mismanagement of disasters like hurricane Katrina or the war in Iraq and solutions to real problems.

[...]

The Republican battlefield of 40 incumbent Republican seats is wide open to the Democrats who can challenge deep into the second tier. Voters are very attentive to politics this year and that only seems to be opening further opportunities in 2008. This is clearly a year to think expansively and to define the change against the Republicans who are responsible for the government in Washington and the direction of the country.

Democracy Corp - Carville / Greenberg

7:32 AM EST

the Boston Phoenix :

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid55453.aspx

Obama’s candidacy is not only about hope, not only about change. Most important of all, it is about the future.

Almost four years ago in Boston, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, electrified and inspired the Democratic convention as no national newcomer had done since 1948, when Hubert Humphrey championed the cause of civil rights.

Obama’s clarion call has been to reject the politics of confrontation and division as practiced by Bush, right-wingers, and talk-radio motor mouths.

His vision is of comity and common purpose. Eloquence is his calling card. It is penetrating, transcending verbal facility — the hallmark of someone at peace with himself, someone who is confident rather than cocksure.

Obama is also a maverick. There is no doubt that his promise outstrips his experience. That was also true of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. Vision was their strength; rhetoric was their means to an end.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Wilson so successfully captured the spirit of their times — synthesizing the best, marginalizing the worst — that history remembers them as representative leaders: presidents who made a difference.

The Phoenix believes that Obama has the capacity to do so, too, in a way that Clinton — for all that is admirable about her — does not.

Obama comes to the political marketplace unencumbered by the bonds of dynasty. By voting for him on Tuesday, citizens are maximizing the opportunity to put the recent past behind them and to start anew.

There is a degree of uncertainty in all of this. Promise and progress are never risk free.

...

Last night during debate Obama stated what he woud do against McCain.  Clinton however kept referring how she would fight the Bush era.  The 90s are gone, we need to move ahead.  Her line it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush doesn't wash with me.

It is pretty early here in AK, but I do intend to phone bank to get people out to caucas.

7:52 AM EST

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882?from=rss

Why Obama's approach to health care isn't naive.

Paul Krugman is a brilliant Princeton economist and fine columnist for The New York Times who was far ahead of the pack in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. His clarity in explaining what academics call "political economy" is without peer. But his attack on Barack Obama on December 17 was wrong on history, wrong on politics and wrong on what the future holds for Obama's "big table" idea.

Krugman calls Obama "naïve" and an "anti-change candidate" because he favors bringing all of the players in the health care debate around a "big table" and rejects the populist message of John Edwards, who is apparently Krugman's choice for president. "Anyone who thinks the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world," Krugman writes, endorsing Edwards's view that the insurance and drug industries should be excluded from any talks on health care reform because they stand to lose profits.

The columnist and his candidate both believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded by being a polarizing figure. I studied FDR for four years while writing a book about him, and this is simply untrue. It's also untrue of other successful Democratic presidents and for a simple reason: "Bitter confrontation" simply doesn't work in policy-making.

Bear with me for a brief history lesson: The so-called "First New Deal" of 1933-34 came after Roosevelt won a landslide victory over Herbert Hoover in 1932 in a campaign devoid of any populist message despite an unemployment rate of at least 25 percent. First, FDR worked with Hoover treasury officials from the other party to rescue the banks under a conservative plan that included steep budget cuts. The rest of his famous "100 days" agenda-which included unprecedented jobs programs, agricultural reform, labor rights, and regulation of financial markets—was achieved with much more compromise than Krugman recognizes. Social Security came in 1935 after a big Democratic mandate in midterm elections and was enacted piecemeal and cooperatively (to the disappointment of many New Deal liberals) with everyone at the table.

During and after his 1936 reelection campaign, FDR—angry at the ingratitude of the rich Americans whose fortunes he had saved—adopted class-based politics. In 1937, with a big victory under his belt, he tried confrontation with his court-packing scheme. It failed badly. So did his effort to "purge" the opposition in 1938. The rest of his second-term was far less productive legislatively than his first.

...

Just after Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

Sound familiar? This is essentially what Obama is proposing for health care after he's elected. If Hillary Clinton had done this on health care in 1993—instead of convening a secret task force—she might have been able to build a stronger public case for reform.

...

Have a nice day (under the coconut tree), folks.  I am off to generate more tax revenue for the war.

Devendra Banhart - Shabop Shalom        http://hypem.com/track/467547

Early morning hello,

I wonder if Europeans are as passionate about their candidates as we are.  But then, they aren't in the mess we are in either.

The telling line for me last night in the debate was Obama saying he wanted to change the mindset that got us into the war in the first place.

Maybe someday someone will analyze what it is that makes people Clinton supporters, Obama supporters, and Edwards supporters.  I'm sure it's more than just message. What is it that resonates with temperaments, life experiences, values?  Would be interesting to know, and then again, we'd probably be exploited by the marketers...as if we aren't already.

But, I'm hopeful, just can't live any other way.

102.  They're all just personal opinions--tell you something about the people who express them; next to nothing about the people the opinions are about.  I think Phil's opinion of Edwards was influenced by his great sympathy for the people of New Orleans.  Unfortunately, what happened to the people of New Orleans is only different in the amount of time it took to happen.  The hearts of America's urban areas, all over the country, have been systematically destroyed, just more slowly, by neglect and nonsensical antagonisms.  And it was done by well-meaning people who were convinced that living in close proximity to each other makes people irrascible.  So, they determined to spread them out.  

103.  We just have to be very clear what a liberal is.  A liberal is a person that practices self-control.  A liberal is a person that doesn't have to be given orders every moment of the day, because he already knows what the order of the day is and carries it out.  If a conservative is the opposite of such a person, then it follows that a conservative is someone who can't think for himself and needs to be constantly directed or brainwashed to be effective.

BTW, I'm even more tired of someone claiming to be something they're not than I am of someone accusing someone else of something they've done themselves.  The Clintons have taken money from people convicted of crimes.  Clinton's claim of experience is more annoying because of presidential experience she has none, zero, zilch.  Living in the White House does not equal experience.  if it did, then the roaches in the kitchen would be more qualified than Hillary or, for that matter, Bill.

It's my guess that Axelrod went into this much as Trippi went into the Dean campaign--not expecting much more than to collect and spend and pocket a lot of money.  It would seem that Obama has more control over his consultants than Dean did and Clinton does.  Either that or Senator Clinton is a lot stupider than reputed.  Perhaps the appearance of poor staff work is a ploy to cover for the candidate.  If so, it's not one I appreciate, at all.

Last night during debate Obama stated what he woud do against McCain.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes rae, I immediately picked up on that and to Obamas credit I applaud him 100% on that effort..........why has he taken so long(and Hillary too) to start this though?

Finally, on Edwards, it's my sense that he identified the problem well, but the solutions he offered (render a judgement and impose a hefty monetary fine) just didn't ring plausible.  Even at the very end, the message that went out from the campaign was essentially, "if you've been dumped on, then I'm your man."  In a sense, victims know when they've been victimized, but having a champion after the fact is not actually empowering.  What's needed is a strategy to insure that the victimization won't be repeated.  When you come right down to it, the primary purpose of government is to prevent victimization.  That's a different mission from "protection."  What's the difference between a predator and a domesticator/protector?  In some cases it may just be a matter of time. You get eaten later rather than sooner.  LOL

Good morning, BFA ... God knows where this post will end up. Isn't it time for a new thread?

**********
Nice to see some sanity here from Monica and Phil, I know that you're grieving. So am I. I mostly hate how much the MSM controls the perceptions. They've all but coronated 'Cain for the 'Thugs. They're having a bit of trouble picking between Hill or Barack, but they're having a wonderful dither.

**********
Just in case anyone here has forgotten about The Quagmire (unikely I know) ...

================
February 2, 2008
Dozens Killed in Worst Baghdad Attack in Months
By STEPHEN FARRELL and GRAHAM BOWLEY

BAGHDAD — Twin bombs struck two markets in central Baghdad on Friday, killing dozens in the worst attack in the Iraqi capital for many months.

One bomb hit the Ghazil pet market, the scene of another deadly bombing in November when 13 people were killed.

The second bomb hit minutes later and barely two miles away at the New Baghdad pet market. Both markets are on the east side of the river, and both are in mainly Shiite areas. But they are popular with both Shiites and Sunnis.

The bombings were carried out by female suicide attackers wearing explosive vests, witnesses said.

American military commanders have noted in recent months that in areas where there are many checkpoints insurgents have begun using suicide vests instead of vehicles to carry out bombings because they are easier to sneak past road blocks and barriers.

Ghazil is sealed off to most vehicles by head-high concrete blast barriers.

[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/...

Ah, but don't the 'Thugs keep telling us how much of a "success" the "surge" was?

Guess that the Iraqis missed the message.

=============
Iraqi cleric threatens to end militia freeze unless attacks stop
Michael Howard in Baghdad
Friday February 1, 2008
The Guardian

Senior aides to the powerful Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr yesterday warned the US and the Iraqi government that a six-month freeze on the activities of their militia may not be extended unless the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, takes steps to halt attacks on Sadr's followers.

Sadr's order to his Jaish al-Mahdi militia is regarded as a vital component of the nationwide downturn in violence during the past half year. Fighters loyal to Sadr had been blamed for fuelling the sectarian violence that gripped Baghdad and religiously mixed areas to the north and south of the capital. A renewal of their activities could undo much of the recent progress in security on the ground and stir up tensions among Iraq's Shia Muslims.

[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,...

Today's Krugman, who also mourns the loss of Edwards' ideas in this election.

===================
February 1, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Edwards Effect
By PAUL KRUGMAN

So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.

But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.

To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.

At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinio...

I hope that Krugman is right in that JRE's ideas will remain part of this election.

One could be skeptical of his latter-day conversions, but while he was running for President this time, he actually walked the walk as well as talking the talk.

And yes, Monica, going to NoLa and working there also made an impression on me.

The remaining Dem candidates would do well to continue his beginnings.

Well, so far, the blog seems to have regained its sequential equilibrium.  LOL  

It is now February, the magical month. 

Should have clarified that I meant JRE's going to NoLa and working there.

I cannot claim to have done that.

But I did visit and see for myself.

For that alone, putzCo deserve impeachment.

But there is so much more.

Spoke too soon, as usual.

fyi - new Front thread

I seem to be the only one left here, but if anyone is lurking, there is indeed a new thread.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23738...

Popping in. Read some old threads and saw that Judy for Dean said a difference was that Obama voted against on the Kyl Lieberman Iran vote.

That isn't true.

And I'm sure of the candidates they took the time to vote, they would like credit for it.



U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session


as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Kyl Amdt. No. 3017 as Modified )
Vote Number: 349 Vote Date: September 26, 2007, 12:44 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3017 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.
Vote Counts: YEAs 76
NAYs 22
Not Voting 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State



Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State



Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---76
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

NAYs ---22
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2

McCain (R-AZ) Obama (D-IL)