I am so tired of this overexposed "moderator" who is on my SIPA list (Self Important Pompous Ass), but my first question is why the reluctance to making English our official language?  I wonder if anyone can tell me what countries have Spanish as their official language? Do any of them print ballots in English?

Looks like Edwards is making a strong pitch.  Don't get me wrong, I don't know where I stand on these candidates other than I'm gonna be voting for one of them, but Edwards is certainly making a hard push in this debate and he's not afraid to step on front-runners toes.

Lowell, thanks for the link to this excellent live stream.

Observations (one hour in):

-  Bill Richardson not on his toes today -- not answering most questions directly, not articulate, rambling all over the place, showing kind of a deer-in-the-headlights look.  Really doesn't look like he can hold his own among such eloquent orators as Obama, Biden and Edwards.

-  Clinton as usual showing her sharpness.  As long as she avoids being too shrill (came close to being a little snippy on her Iraq vote), she is very effective.

- I have to admit I find Dodd's communication style annoying.  The ones that I think look best tonight are Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden. 

-  Gravel not as insane as last time. 

Stay tuned...

how dare you!  The only one, the women, you decide to make a shitty remark.  Too shrill, WTF?  That is the typical right wing crap -

Hillary is a brillant WOMEN.  If her voice is a higher pitch then get over it,but saying she is shrill is just crap.

How about I say - Joe Biden voice was so low he sounded like a pervert? 

God I hate when people do that just because she is a women.  (oh and I like John Edwards for president)

I specifically praised Hillary's "sharpness" and "effectiveness".  I think highly of her and may well support her for president. 

The reality is that image matters and how she or any other candidate presents themselves is important.  And please note that I also specifically criticized how some of the men came across. 

Your groundless stereotyping of me as a sexist is much more egregious than one stray word in my posting.

Obama ... despite the obvious attacks ... he remained calm and got his point across ... remided Edwards of his lack of leadership 4 1/2 years ago when he voted to authorize going into Iraq ...

Clinton ... did herself  lot of good as making efforts to unite Democrats .... "my dear husband" answer was a Kodak moment

Edwards ... always smooth but in pure attack mode ... attacks on Obama in health care and on Iraq vote were his worst moments ... quotes New Republic about Obama ...

Biden ... looks more like a serious number 4 ... 

Dodd ... didn't seem to be listening to each questions ... had points he 

Richardson,  how many times did he say "as Governor of New Mexico"?

Kucinich ... strong position on Iraq and universal health care

Gravel ... please stop yelling ... you are included and your last moment in the spotlight is hurt ... not helped by throwing stones every time you speak ... act like the senior stateman

He is EXACTLY RIGHT. The fact that Clinton and Obama did not show any leadership leading up to the recent bill funding the troops and waited till the last minute to vote shows they are NOT leaders.

We need someone who has the guts to lead and the guts to know when he was wrong and say so.

in this race right now, but it's easy for someone who's not in the Senate to critize those who are currently there.  When Edwards WAS in the Senate, he co-sponsored the bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq.  I mean, I like Edwards, but just sayin'...

There were a pile of Dems who voted for that resolution.  I wonder how much power that vote is gonna have by the time the election comes around.  It could have more power than I think, they can always say they were lied to by Bush and Co and as more pressing concerns come to light this question could lose some of the power it has.

What Edwards is speaking of is the fact that there were NO statements by Clinton or Obama concerning the vote or how they would vote. There was NO leadership from them on this issue. T

The fact that they did not speak out and did not show leadership and lend their voice to push more people to vote no as well shows they at the very least were politically calculating the vote consequences up to the last minute. At the most they are just plain cowards. Strong language and I don't think they necessarily are.

But the fact they said NOTHING is inexecuseable. That was Edwards point and to jab at him for not being there to vote now is weak and is a mere deflection from the point.

had 16 co-sponsors in the Senate:

Lieberman, Joe
Allard, Wayne
Baucus, Max
Bayh, Evan
Breaux, John
Bunning, Jim
Domenici, Jim
Edwards, John
Helms, Jesse
Hutchinson, Tim
Johnson, Tim
Landrieu, Mary
McCain, John
McConnell, Mitch
Miller, Zell
Thurmond, Strom
Warner, John

I mean I hate to bring it up, but for Edwards to take others to task the way he is....

The irony is I like the Edwards of 2004 better. Why can't he be right about the war AND a nice guy in the same election cycle?

Because the only way Edwards wins is by grabbing the far-left of your party and then hammering on Iraq to try and pick off more of the "centrist" democrats from Clinton and Obama

Anyone who thinks we are safer now because of the war in Iraq does not deserve serious consideration as a presidential candidate.

She actually said we're safer because of the Iraq War?  If so, that's a "wow."

"We are safer than we were."

That is from a post on Daily Kos.

My dvr is not rewinding far enough while it is recording. I have to wait till this finishes to go back and get the exact quote myself.

...it will be the headline, I think.  And not in a good way.

As a New Yorker, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists," Clinton said.

Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."

Link
http://www.cbsnews.c...

I actually think we're far LESS safe than we were before we invaded Iraq and took our eye off the ball - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. 

There are alot of voters that are working hard to make us safer not necessarily the polical hacks, etc.

You cannot disparage the hard workers of DHS, coast guard, FBI, CIA etc.  These are the voters they are implementing policy.  We may not be safer because of the chimps big mouth but like the military the people who are givin the "mission" to protect and detect threats are working hard.

I heard that and thought... why did she say that?  Then I thought, she's a senator and would want to say that she'd helped to create a safer America while in office.  I guess that's politically smart.  But your points are good about "hard workers".

She is still thinking about the general election

Will you guys let her get there....

I can't imagine her letting that comment stand.

I'm not a big Hillary fan but in fairness, she did not mean we were safer because of the war in Iraq.  She thinks, and this is how I heard it, we are safer because of better surveillance and domestic security programs. 

And in some ways we are safer now. Ironically, because of the attack on September 11, there are things we now know to do that we never could have known before that tragic day happened.

Our airport security, though far from perfect, is better now than it was when the private company, Argenbright, handled baggage inspections. 

DHS, CIA, DIA, FBI and all the branches of domestic and foreign intelligence have improved.  We have prevented terrorist attacks on our shores.

It's not because if Iraq.  That has made the whole world less safe.  But on the domestic front, better law enforcement and intelligence has led to improvement in security.  Hillary is not wrong on that.

No way can anyone convince me Clinton won this thing. Her statements regarding "being safer" now because of Iraq and then calling Iraq "George Bush's war". As I have always feared she does not get it. There is two Americas alright; those living in reality and those living in deniability. Clinton lives in the latter. She calls this "Bush's War" when it in fact it is "OUR" war being fought by Americans overseas. Furthermore, she voted for the thing and funded countless times so in fact the war is as much hers as it Bush's as it yours and mine as Americans.
I think Edwards scored some points. Clintons answer regarding her failed attempt at "universal" healthcare back during Bill's administration was shocking to me. She speaks of "political will" and then complains about the struggle with the insurance companies....she gave up her political will and caved in on healthcare. I know the mass media will spin it all but I think she was disappointing tonight.

She did not say we were safer because of Iraq.  She said that we are safer because of some of the protection that have been put in place ( and by the recomendations of the Democratics).  Her point was that we have been focused on shoring up processes and other things to make the "homeland" safer.  It had nothing to do with Iraq

The reason any f that is getting funded is becasue it is in the bill and funding in around the Iraq issue. If the doctine that we are less safe or our "homeland" is less safe is due to our involvement in Iraq then it has everything to do with Iraq...there has been an overwhelming contention that we would be safer if we were not there..show me any bills in the senate or house right now that address what you say put forth by any party that is not a funding bill for Iraq that address concerns of "shoring up processes". The only thing that comes close is the immigration dialogue and addressing border secutiry.

..... and to point out the war is BUSH's WAR!!  Also, it's really more a civil war requiring the kind of command of diplomacy where Senator Clinton excells! Later in the program, she was clearly the one who lead all the candidates away from a minefield of Blitzer 'hypotheticals' --

Clinton did not cave on healthcare in '93-- she was shouted down by the very industry groups she named in the debate.  It was not yet time for that policy vision but some things take years to be accepted by the public as necessary.  In 1992, the  public was not ready for that struggle.  With industry groups fighting her efforts, she needed public awareness, public support. Again, she is very obviously the candidate with the greatest depth and most experience in this issue. 

Kusnich (sp) would not pull the trigger.  Gotta love him.  The poor guy just can't cave in to political considerations.  He's just on the edge of being called a nut.

All the rest would with qualifications, of course.

Is he more pissed than usual?

Yeah, it's good to show passion, but...don't go overboard!

Hillary  "I don't think it's useful to be talking in these abstract hypothetical terms."  Big applause for her whacking Wolf on the nose.  Rest of crew jump in to agree with her.  Score one for H.C.

Like the format, could use a little less Wolf. 

"If bin Laden, a nun and a rabbi walked into a bar in Hackensack..."

I love this. I have long been tired of those kind of BULLSHIT questions.

What will you do your first 100 days in office? Thanks Wolf . A hypothetical Clinton and the rest chose to embarce. What a softball!!!
The reason Clinton and rest joined in is b/c they took a beating on the last debates so-called hypotheticals. No since fueling a more fires.
The political problem with these "hypotheticals" is they are all from left field and they have not been briefed by staff what the answer should be and they simply just do not have any answers on the fly. Talk to any staffer, they hate those questions. Alot of prep goes into these things and no one likes the unknown. Personally, a lack of willingness to answer those is a pretty good indication of the kind of leadership you can expect out of someone. I praise Obama and Edwards for tackling some of those.

When you are president you don't have a script to go from

The one thing Bush taught the country is these hypotheticals matter

It may drive the consultants crazy but we need to see if these people are actually Presidential.

If he would not start every sentence with I was, or my plan, he'd be much better.  Not that everyone isn't doing it.  He's just more obvious.

A state with a tiny population, I managed to do ... blah ... blah ... blah.

New Mexico is barely a state ;-)  Combine it with Arizona and then you have a state ;-) 

Balancing the budget in New Mexico is nothing like balancing the federal budget.  It's like saying "When I was in t-ball I was a great batter.  I should be in the starting lineup for the Yank... bad example ... Red Sox.

I'm running a little behind because of DVR and stopping for quotes, but Edward said, "We no longer have moral authority to lead in this world."

Biden just hit him on the nose for the comment, claiming we still have it if we will act. 

I don't think it hit Edwards though. But it did hit Bush.

We have lost the moral authority, yes.

We can get it back by actually doing something moral like going over to Darfur and making those fools knock that shit off.

Kusinich and Dodd reduced to quoting JFK.  I guess Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt are next. 

I now formally retract my statement above that Gravel was less insane tonight than less time.  He is pretty nasty in how he goes after the others.  There is something to be said for civility...

The only guy who's keeping Dennis out from under the dunce cap. 
I don't mean to be so hard on the guy. I think he's sweeet--but I wonder if we're living on the same planet sometimes. 

Hey, he got a nice looking wife out of his last run.  What's he looking for this time?

But didn't know he found one.  Good for him. I would be nothing without my good wife. 

Biden, Dodd and Richardson are hanging by thin threads.

Obama, Clinton and Edwards look like the real "heavy weights".  I'd love to seem them square off by themselves.

Still I am not super impressed with any announced Democratic candidate or Republican candidates.  It looks like a weak field.  All I see so far is pandering to special interests, vaugness and finessing the issues. 

I wouldn't mind seeing Senator Webb or Senator Durbin weigh in.

The comment of the evening came from Senator Biden who offered that the next President would have "no margin for error"  ... so few words and yet it says exactly why the 2008 election is so important.

1. Obama showed he has the ability to fend off attacks

2. Clinton relied much more on Bill's record ... looks to be moving to presenting Democrats with a "remember when" candidacy ... can you sing "Happy Days Will Come Again .. when you elect a Clinton Again"

3. Edwards in attack mode did little to advance his cause

4. Biden became a serious number 4  with a ^
---------------------------------------------------------------

5. Dodd made a case for staying in the Senate

6. Richardson made a very strong case for remaining Governor of New Mexico

7. Kucinich stayed true to his platform

8. Gravel proved he needs to leave the stage
---------------------------------------------------------------

1. Edwards defined what it means to lead on the issue of Iraq. The deft pointing out of the lack of leadership on this key issue by the other two top tier candidates was key to this.

2. Clinton said "we are safer now than before going to Iraq" She should be TOAST for this. I doubt it but she should be.

3. Obama was more of the same. Nice guy but not ready yet. His deflection on the issue of being a leader on the issue of Iraq by pointing out Edwards vote,which he has apologized for repeatedly, shows he is not ready to be a leader still.

4. Biden was great a couple of times. On moral authority is the most obvious.

5. Agree on Richardson. He should remain Gov. of New Mexico

since 2003 :)

but it looks like we agree on the top 4 ...

re: Edwards ... he voted to send us into Iraq while Obama (and I) saw through the B*** S*** and said so publicly ... if I were in Obama's shoes being attacked by a one term Senator and V-P on a ticket that did not carry his home state ... I would have reminded John and the audience that..when it mattered most and his powers of deduction and reason were on the line...he chose to lead our nation with a vote to authorize Bush to use our military in Iraq

I believe that today our Nation is not safer but much less secure because of Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton's vote...that you say "which he has apologized for repeatedly" ... as well he should ... DOD reports today have the U.S. Casualty Status at 3,463 deaths, 11,526 wounded and not returned to duty ... and our troops caught in a predictable civil war... hardly the leadership I want from our next President. 

I thought Edwards was the top candidate.  I wouldn't say he was "clearly" the top. 

We all have our favorites going in so I think we look at our favorites through rose-colored glasses.

If you polled the average American without a constant finger to the political winds who would they say came on top?

I think the top three are neck and neck.  I don't see a clear winner tonight as far as the general public is concerned.  Perhaps the latest polling will indicate one way or another.

here.  James Carville and JC Watts say Hillary Clinton won the debate, while Bill Schneider says "Obama and Edwards had best moments. Drew sharp distinctions with others."

"disappointing performance at the debate."

I wonder what regular people think.  Carville is a long-time Clinton pal.

Carville on Meet the Press pretty much endorsed Hillary. He is about the least objective of any of them given his love for the Clintons.

I'm afraid the "average American" and/or the "general public" wasn't watching and I'm sorry to predict the MTV Movie Awards attracted more viewers ... so let me say a special thanks to everyone here for being concerned citizens! ... 2007 and 2008 are years of opportunity we as Democrats in Virginia need to make the most out of. 

I know I am a bit late for making comments about this debate.  I recently found this site while I was looking for an online stream of the presidential debate at New Hampshire.  Hated to have missed it, but I was on vacation.

Anyhow, I think the 2008 election will be a close race between Obama and Edwards on the democrat side.  Although, Sen. Clinton should be in that tight race as well, I doubt her ability to win for presidency unless she can summon up votes from the south and from women voters.

I have followed Obama fairly closely from the beginning of his political career.  It was an excitement watching him at the University of Chicago giving his speech for the senatorial race.  However, over the past few years, I have to be honest, I have many doubts about certain political decisions he have made.  Obama can not be the reformist that this country needs.

I like Edwards, what he is about, and what he has to say.  I  hope he could win this race, and make Gore his Vice.  ^_^ 

Where everyone who voted for the authorization is worthless.

I understand someone having a problem with Edwards voting for the authorization...Hell, HE has a problem with the fact that the voted for it. But to castigate Edwards in the manner in which you do, or to assume he is ineligible now to criticize and lead on opposition to the war is for lack of a better word...stupid.

Obama voted against the authorization but refused to lead this time around. Hillary voted for it, refuses to apologize for it, and amazingly thinks we are safer now than before going to Iraq.

Edwards showed more character than those two put together tonight.

If you want fold when the fight starts leadership go with Obama. If you want GOP lite go with Hillary. But you don't get to criticize Edwards on leadership when he was obviously the only leader on this issue tonight. The only one willing to call bullshit on the whole GOP frame of "global war on terror".

If you want to talk about the other issues in this race of equal importance such as economic fairness or healthcare then Edwards is the leader on these as well.

Interesting the way you use Republican style framing and attack techniques to smear someone who has comments that don't reflect your position. 

but I agree with most of your points.

With Obama, I sometimes start to have my doubts about him, but then when I hear him speak again I remember why I liked him in the first place.

Clinton did OK, but I really have doubts about her speaking style.

Edwards, to me, is making a mistake by going negative the way he is. It's hurting his overall charisma and likability, and that's his strength.

I thought Obama?s continual use of calling Clinton by her first name while calling the other candidates by their titles and last names was inexcusable and made him look very bad.  And it isn?t an excuse that Hillary Clinton is popularly known by her first name.  In this kind of forum
he should have given everyone the same level of respect.

This has always been a personal pet peeve of mine, having personally endured it way too often as a young female army officer while my male colleagues were given the respect of the use of their titles and last name.  When I hear it today, it sounds worse to me than running fingernails down a blackboard. 

Obama is way too sophisticated not to have done that on purpose, especially in this day and age.  It?s used as a tactic to make the female look inferior and he shouldn?t be allowed to get away with it unscathed. 

Disrespectful.

Hillary Clinton called Barack by his first name at the SC debate. She didn't call him Sen. Obama which I also thougt was quite odd at the SC debate. But I guess both of them being in the senate, they're used to referring to each other by their first names.

If you're going to call a spade a spade, apply the same test to both of them.

PS. I'm happy to be back in the States  and on RK after a long overseas job.

first names.  Non-issue.

I misspoke when I said that it was Obama calling Clinton by her first name.  It was Edwards.  So I just wanted to correct that.

During the 'half-time' analysis, it was Anderson Cooper who thought it was enough of an issue to bring it up in his discussion with Larry King et al. 

As a means of trying not to piggy back hubbie, Hillary had to have been advised that all her elction cigns and stickers should read simply "Hillary 08" ....she opened the door and let those guys walk right through.

Gravel is me when I've had a few too many.  Great bar buddy, bad President. 

I think Kucinich should be the trade czar, not President.  I like his views on NAFTA and the WTO, Chinese currency manipulation, and deficits.  He should be negotiating our trade agreements - not some corporate hack.  When the military has OBL in their launch coordinates, I want a president who will give the order to drop the (non-atomic) bomb.

If Gravel and Kucinich would kindly bow out now, Dodd, Richardson, and Biden would have more time to get their points across.  We know how you feel on the war Dennis and Gravel.  Good points, but the adults have work to do.

Senator Clinton and Obama rightfully got called on their last minute votes.  I was not impressed that they did not show leadership and simply played politics with their votes.  They shouldn't be playing a game of chicken with our soldiers.  Shame on them.

Senator Edwards came on strong.  We was man enough to admit he was wrong on the war.  He called Clinton and Obama on their game of chicken.  I predict he makes some gains tonight.

I liked the debate, it was one of the stronger ones I have seen in awhile.  They got really into the issues.  They could have been better at answering the questions asked of them, and I wish they asked more questions on economic issues related to trade, globalization, and immigration.

Still doing a little too much with the bash Bush stuff but I understand its the primary season

Lowell, you should do one of these on Tuesday too as long as you guys promise to keep it clean :-p

...but I'd be happy to do an open thread on the Republicans' discussion of preferred techniques for "enhanced interrogation," doubling the size of Gitmo, denying global warming, etc. :)

If you were a Democrat, wouldn't you be jumping on Bush with both feet.  Come on--that guy's an opposition strategist's once in a lifetime dream.  Of course they're gonna bash Bush.  You guys impeached Clinton over an act most men beg for most of their lives. 

Here are some clues

2004

Kerry

Anti -  vs  Anti - 

Election is still 18 + months away so I can spell it out

In 2004 the democrats made a mistake instead of saying why Kerry was better it was more about the Anti-Bush vote

In 2008 Bush isn't running

So Presidential candidates Democrats should be focused on why they should be in charge and what they will do instead of focusing on bashing the current administration.  Everyone knows the current administration is a disaster alraedy.

Lowell has the link up earlier.  The public doesnt like either party right know.

I think ultimtaely 2008 will be healthy because much like 2000 there will be two clearly different views of what to do next for America.

Oh and as long as I am giving free advice the talking point from last night is Democrats will raise taxes.

"Did Joe Biden win the debate last night?"  Of Joe Biden's 15 minutes of fame, he used just over half of it at the debate, where he was clocked at having just under eight minutes of speaking time during last nights' debate.  Obama spoke for 16 minutes.  Clinton spoke for around 14.5.  Wolf Blitzer came in third with more than 13 minutes of speaking time.

Joe Biden may have had some snappy answers, but when the top tier candidates get twice as much time to speak as you--when the TV news personality moderating gets more time to speak than you--you didn't win anything.  It's not his fault, CNN just wasn't going to give him the camera time he needed to stand out from the back-of-the-pack candidates in the first place.

(Kucinich spoke for about nine minutes, which is one more minute of free media than Biden received).

...during last night's debate in New Hampshire.  She is clearly the most qualified of all the candidates. 

Tonight, during the Faith and Politics Forum at GW, Senator Clinton clearly spoke -- very personally and openly-- about how her faith informs her daily choices in life.  I think it also informs her politics--- when she votes for health care for those with none; votes to keep our troops safe; votes a living wage for those less fortunate.  All those actions are living faith- in my opinion.

Thank you, Hillary!

Lycanthropy as defined my Wikipedia:

  In folklore, lycanthropy is the ability or power of a human being to undergo transformation into a wolf.

There is no better definition for our conservative democrats than that of lycanthropy. You never know when they will explode into a ball of fur, claws and dimwitted logic in the halls of Congress. They are extremely undependable and definitely against the progressive agenda.

It was also obvious that he full moon was out when the war funding bill passed recently and we also discovered a lot more of the dogs were blue than we previously expected.

Do we do as Harry Potter does, embrace the inner good of the werewolf and help them overcome their issues or should we follow the path of the ?all-out? Van Helsing and relegate the blue dogs back to the unemployment line?