Decoding the Debates

re: Decoding the Debates

Mike/HI — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:23:37 GMT

What in the world is wrong with the american electorate? Are they, with exceptions, stupid, uneducated, apathetic, ignorant or just not paying attention or in a Polyanna world??? It's utterly unbelieveable that the likes of a Barack Hussein, admitted drug abuser in years' gone by, a friend to the Nation of Islam, the most liberal member of Congress, friend to slumlords, doing business with crooked Iraqi businessmen in Europe and arguably the stupidist candidate for the presidencey I have ever seen (he does give great sppeches though) has reached the level he has!!! I blame it on the flavor of the month, those people who follow fads or movements without really grasping what's going down here!!! The future of the most powerful nation on earth at a most dangerous time in world history (terrorism, resurgent Russia, Israel, Pakistan and more) is at stake! And here we have a biased media...a fad...a "movement" and an idiot with a checkered past in the final heat of the democratic process! God, please, help this nation and it's blind populace.

re: Decoding the Debates

herbiemax — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:31:20 GMT

I was not able to watch the debate, just read it this morning and clearly hitting Hillary with accusations, and continuosly interrupting her was intentional. As well as playing the wrong script so that Obama could laugh at her. This along with the "what do you say to her answer" question that was given to Obama clearly over half the time. Then giving his answer praise before he gave it in the form of a question gives him the upper hand before he opens his mouth. Obama really didn't need to be there as Williams and Russert did the work for him. Whatever happens in this primary Hillary has clearly shown much more grace and wisdom than any of the press.

re: Decoding the Debates

Susan N — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:17:31 GMT

Why does Obama have such a hard time looking at the camera? I've been noticing this particularly in the debates that he is either looking off to the side when he is speaking or writing notes when Hillary is speaking. He also seems to blink a lot. Isn't this a sign of something about which we should be concerned?

Yes, America is very superficial and would rather be courted by a smooth talking man than educated by an experienced, intelligent woman.

re: Decoding the Debates

howwiwowie — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:46:54 GMT

Very interesting articles of professor Lauden's analysis. I did watched the debate again after the live show. I found myself think differently than the first impression from the live show. I must admit I think Hillary Clinton does not sound that desperate and angry as first time I felt. She showed her ablity to express and feel lots of nuances and fast response to tough questions hidden under some unfriendly feelings and body languages dilevered from the moderators and her opponent. On the other hand, Obama is not as a bad debator as generally conceived. He is very sleek and redirect questions in his own way so he does not have to answer it. It seems to me though it will make him feel very uncomfortable to answer some of those questions directly. It is a very smart stragety if he perceives hmself not a good debator. These are totally different styles. In addition, by watching the debate it tells me their personality. Clinton is very sensitive, direct but detail-orientated and Obama is definitly not a detailed guy(compared to clinton), but he is a cool guy with brains. He likes to talk about the big picture and forced to talk details and he is not very comfortable and lack of confidence to do that in my opinion. Therefore, I think both of them are very talanted and nice candidates. To the end, its up to voters which styles they like and cast their votes for.

And I wish most of the media could offer some sound and logical analysis as Pf. Lauden did. It will help voters to decide what is best for them based on the facts.

re: Decoding the Debates

opinionater — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:52:49 GMT

Maybe the US could use a smooth talking diplomat that knows how to Romance the world instead of the high handed methods we have been using to alienate the rest of the world. Many politicians have German names and that does not make them Nazis. This country is made up of people from all over the world and it is about time we become a little more open minded. The ability to compromise is not a weakness.

re: Decoding the Debates

sheababylv — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:41:33 GMT

Mike:

The man's name is Barack Obama, not Barack Hussein. Hussein is his middle name, as you well know. Now why should someone's middle name bother you so? Also, please do some research before posting incorrect information. Obama wrote a book in which he admitted to occasional drug use as a very young man. That does not translate to being a "drug abuser". Bush is a recovered alcoholic who also used to snort coke - and he was no teen or college student when he was deep into his addiction. Many people who are now in their 40s and 50s experimented a bit when young and were never "drug abusers", but I suspect you know and understand that. And "a friend to the Nation of Islam"? That's laughable to me. Can you supply proof to back up that accusation? And which "slumlords" and "crooked Iraqi businessmen" did he do business with? Again, please provide some kind of proof. I don't have to agree with McCain or Clinton, but I would never call either of them "stupid". Interesting how an educated, well-spoken man seems stupid to you. Again, can you elaborate on why you consider this particular U.S. Senator stupid?

re: Decoding the Debates

lcastillo5 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:05:18 GMT

You think they handled turn taking well? What debate did you watch last night??? Hillary time and time again ignored the moderators and went on talking about healthcare. I thought that was very rude and she did not respect the rules of the game. Yet, she kept getting away with it so, that forced Senator Obama tro interject so he could be HEARD! She did the same thing at the debate before this and no one stopped her. It seems to me if she thinks she can change the rules whenever it is convenient for her. What kind of President will she be?? Too much like George Bush! He makes his own rules as he goes along because he's the DECIDER!!

re: Decoding the Debates

lcastillo5 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:14:54 GMT

I am sick and tired of the american people falling for Hillary's tactics. You have to be blind not to see she is pulling all the stops this week. First she played:

Gracious Clinton - Said it was an honor to have ran against Senator Obama

Crazy Clinton - Ranting and raving about an ACCURATE flyer

Comedic Clinton - Celestial choirs will sing blah, blah, blah

Finally

Victim Hillary - You're all against me! You make me answer questions first!! You like Obama more than me! That translates to childish Clinton who is throwing a tantrum. Victim Clinton has worked quite well for her. The fake crying worked really well. When Whitewater info came out it was 'The Republicans are out to get us' routine!! When is america going to wake up and see that it is ALL an act!! The press has known about it for quite some time.

re: Decoding the Debates

Mnaf — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:21:55 GMT

Sheababylv:

Thanks for saying some of what needed to be said.

Mike:

Your writing makes it clear that you have a whole lot of projection going on! Let's hope and pray that ignorant, arrogant and spiteful people like you are a small minority, and not representative of most people in this country. Otherwise, yes, God please help us.

re: Decoding the Debates

JA Ingram — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:47:00 GMT

I can tell you exactly why Hilary will not win this election: she's negative and the American people are sick and tired of negativity. Another reason is that she thinks she's entitled to win; it's HER turn. No, no it isn't. I am a woman, a feminist, Spanish/Native American and married to a white man, all the issues in this campaign affect my family, and I am in her supposed 'target audience', yet I and my husband are voting for Obama. Why? Because I and my husband recognize that Barack is the kind of man who listens to what people say, who does not jump into battle because he feels a blood lust, and he's the antithesis of George W Bush. People are tired of these morons who think this is the Old West. Hilary wants to prove she's a fighter and she likes to scrap. We don't need a fighter right now, we need a peace maker. The biggest thing that bothers me about her campaign though is the way she talks about her husband's White House. Bill this and Bill that--Barack doesn't say, "My wife, Michelle, did this so I should be president," does he? She was a senator, she had her own career, the American people are tired of political dynasties and she is giving people the impression that electing her is re-electing Bill. And what about Bill? Yeah, compared to the travesty of the Bush administration he looks like gold, but less we forget the reason Bush got in and not Gore was because Bill caused more embarrassment and scandal in his eight years than any other president until Dubya took office. I just think it's to Barack's credit that he never once took the low road and pointed that out. Meanwhile, between saying she's earned the presidency, complaining that she's not being treated fairly, smearing Barack with one hand then blasting him for complaining about it with the other---people, please! I want to see a woman take our highest office but not this woman. I realize that Dubya has basically dismantled the Constitution and turned the Presidency into an Imperial office, but I want someone in the big chair who can fix things not make them worse. Hilary will just keep fighting, damn the consequences. At this point her best strategy in the long run shouldn't be 'How do I detsroy Barack Obama?' but 'How can I STOP making the Republicans look good?'

re: Decoding the Debates

Medge — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:33:34 GMT

The cultural attire "attack" on Senator Obama by Hillary is another aspect of her "dirty politics" tactics. Politicians--including Hillary, have been dressing in the cultural attire of other countries-- in order to show respect for their beliefs and values--for centuries, but the underhanded manner in which the Hillary camp used Obama's picture, dressed in the traditional local garment of Kenya, during a visit to this country in 2006, was ill intended. It's obvious whe has her camp well trained.

On the health plan issue, it would have been interesting to ask her during the debate, how come she could not come up with a plan similar to the one she now proposes, when she was in the White House as first lady, for 8 years during her husband's Administration. Why did she not challenge the AMA and Pharmaceutical Lobbyists' opposition to a decent health plan for the American people. Was it because it was not politically expedient, since she was not running for office then?

As for debating strengths, they lie in her ability to manipulate, but then again, manipulation and dirty politics is more a weakness than a strength. A high percentage of the American public, even without "legal skills", could see through her tactics and get turned off by them. They could see her intentions even through the $400 make-up she used to cover up her baggy eyes during the debate-- that she is desperate, and would do and say anything to get ahead.

re: Decoding the Debates

15R8 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:15:36 GMT

I didn't see the debate but hope to watch the rerun Can it be that Tim Russert whom I have long admirred as not bias has slipped off his wool to reveal the inner bias. only viewing that debate can answer my question.

But no matter what I have the growing feeling the Clinton campaigh has gone off thje tracks and I fear it was helped by BIAAS REPORTING and WASHINGTON INSIDERS. Which is areal shame

ashame because Obamma grows on a democrat as rice grows in water and it would be a crying shame the first mixed race person to ever go so far would be tainted by washington insiders derailing a campaigh of his oppisition. If this were the case serious questions should be raised about how he will govern and who he ows

re: Decoding the Debates

chandra perera — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:54:06 GMT

Every debate I watched between the two leading democratic presidential contenders, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, I find it is striking that to the degree to which Senator Obama imitates Senator Clinton. Obviously, Senator Obama lacks the depth of understanding of the issues and policy details. Mr. Obama clearly needs more education on the issues that critical for our country. Although Mr. Obama has run a great campaign, just like George Bush did, nonetheless we need someone like Hillary Clinton with hands on experience to lead us in this perilous time of history.

re: Decoding the Debates

Jack3213 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:20:29 GMT

McCain is most qualified, most deserving, most experianced. Anyone who disagrees is naive. There should be questions raised about Obama's experiance, authenticity, and lack of knowledge. This country deserves someone who has what it takes to keep us safe, not learn on the job where mistakes of disasterious proporations can happen. This time of war warrants a person who has been in a war, who can understand war, and do what it takes to survive a war. McCain knows this first hand. Obama or Hillary certainly do not. If we are not safe from terrorists, we all perish, then all other issues are mute.

re: Decoding the Debates

sherriw — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:39:41 GMT

During war time. The last thing I want is someone that doesn't have experience.

re: Decoding the Debates

mzz1@msn.com — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:43:22 GMT

Maybe, I am the stupid one?? What I believe is this country has been on the wrong path for way to long, We are a great country wasting the greatness on thing that just do not matter to most of us. Is it not time for fresh ideas? When did being idealistic become a crime in American Politics? Was not Roosevelt, Kennedy Martin Luther King idealistic yet they helped to change the world for the better. Now we have Hilary Clinton of all people making a joke of idealism. Barack is seeing as Bobby Kennedy once quoted the world as it should be not as it is right now. I believe we are the greatest nation in the history of the world and it can become as we once thought the nation we can be proud of around the world not the nation we are now. Hilary should be ashamed of herself for making jokes about this. It is time for the Democrats to come together not to play dirty games in order to deceive the American people as Hilary is doing. We had enough of that the last 7 years with the present administration.

re: Decoding the Debates

apolemic — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:52:47 GMT

Agreeing with Hillary Clinton is part of his strategy. That the two candidates are very similar on policy (with some small exceptions to health care issues) is obvious. Barack Obama is redefining the debate based on judgment, not policy. By demonstrating his ability to see his opponent's point of view, he is demostrating that he can bridge the bipartisan gap in Congress and acomplish more, where Hillary will continue to fight the battles with the right started during her husband's presidency and achieve the same as George W. over the last eight years: nothing at best, a deepening of the present catastrophe at worst.

re: Decoding the Debates

politiKal-Junkie — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:15:40 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

Grandma B — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:16:16 GMT

The more that Obama is exposed to the public, the better I like it. Because he does the "I agree with her" too often (may be a debate form) , however after a while it is seen by anyone paying attention as I don't know the answer so I'm going to follow suit. Sorry, if I was sitting in the jury box his client would get a guilty vote from me.

re: Decoding the Debates

TINKER5 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:19:55 GMT

Mike really needs help. He is truly and sadly one of the most blind people to post a comment on this site. I am thankful that no one with his mindset is running for president. George Bush is bad enough.

re: Decoding the Debates

jjaffie — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:28:13 GMT

Experience only helps if you learn something along the way….

Senator Clinton thought she was going to roll away with the nomination on Super Tuesday. Well why shouldn’t she? Hillary had the money, the Clinton name, the 35 years experience, the best advisors, & the lead. The one thing she didn’t have was a plan B, just in case.

She put all her eggs into one arrogant, short-sighted basket and got burned. What happens if as president she has a similar blunder only this time it’s the future of our entire country at stake, not just her campaign?

Are you willing to take that chance with Hillary as president?

re: Decoding the Debates

politiKal-Junkie — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:31:46 GMT

I supports Senator Obama and while I felt that Senator Clinton have no one to blame but herself and ex-President Clinton for her fall from front-runner and incumbent nominee; I believe that not the midia, which is not monolethic in this case, but Russert and Williams and their producers were arguably unethical the approaches they employed some of which you eloquently articulated - I was shocked when they opened with the different vidoes as you said this was a [public] debate not Meet the Press. Russert was the worse of the two and being pedantic e.g. on his world affiars quiz and showing off on the details of the new Russian leader. On a separate note, I wish to comment on some of the racist and juvenile postings above - thankfully these views do not represent the vast majoirty of Americans and by the way, wish former Presidents or one of you are without sins?

re: Decoding the Debates

TJIRISH43 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:47:57 GMT

This message for the first poster Mike/HI. Hey Mike I am voting Barak Obama and am a 44yr old WM moderate Democrat and raised catholic. I am neither stupid, uneducated, apathetic or ignorant. Let's run down your points shall we: Obama admitted drug user. Why yes he did use drugs when he was young. So did I. What perfect world do you live in Mike? I respect and admire people who have made mistakes in life and acknowledged them + overcoming them. Friend of Islam you say? Uh where is that fact admitted? Because of his name? Obama has said he has never been a muslim and is a christian putting his hand on the bible when inaugurated in congress. Liberal member of congress? Uh yea what's your point? he is a good Democrat. Slumlords, crooked iraqi businessmen...Mike need to turn off those right wing radio shows Mike and get out a little more often. Stupidest candidate for Presidency you say Mike? Uh let's see Obama highly well eductaed and intelligent. A Senator from Illinois around my age. Obama is no fad Mike. Bill Clinton says "are you willing to roll the dice." Why yes I am! Because I think Obama could be the real deal Mike. I am not blind Mike and I believe this country needs a Barak Obama as president. God help this country and populace that Obama can be what alot of people think he can become. BTW MIKE your bigoted, nasty comments about Obama says more about you as an American then it says about Barak Obama. Good Day!

re: Decoding the Debates

Evax — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:27:57 GMT

How can we tell that Obama is not a Muslim terminator programmed to win, and licensed to kill? Is his "CHANGE" as arcane as that induced by global warming or DNA mutation? The devil who can really hang US would be the President who can sell voters a sugar-coated rope. The devil you don't know is worse than the devil you know. I am not saying that Obama is a devil; however, it is his responsibility to articulate what his "CHANGE" will induce and he has failed that responsibility. Clinton's poor management of her campaign and her style to trust friendship instead of competence already disqualified her as a meaningful candidate. The Democratic Party is responsible for immediately recruiting a candidate who is highly trusted and respected (eg., Al Gore; Bill Gates; etc.) or the party shall soon be over.

re: Decoding the Debates

Emanuel — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:32:55 GMT

Hillary, how can we consider you to be ready on day 1, when you complain during debates about having to answer question 1 ?

re: Decoding the Debates

Tony2001 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:41:53 GMT

If George Bush, the village idiot, can be president of the United States, anybody can.

Posted By: Mike/HI (February 27, 2008 at 6:23 PM)

"What in the world is wrong with the american electorate? Are they, with exceptions, stupid, uneducated, apathetic, ignorant or just not paying attention or in a Polyanna world??? It's utterly unbelieveable that the likes of a Barack Hussein, admitted drug abuser in years' gone by, a friend to the Nation of Islam, the most liberal member of Congress, friend to slumlords, doing business with crooked Iraqi businessmen in Europe and arguably the stupidist candidate for the presidencey I have ever seen (he does give great sppeches though) has reached the level he has!!! I blame it on the flavor of the month, those people who follow fads or movements without really grasping what's going down here!!! The future of the most powerful nation on earth at a most dangerous time in world history (terrorism, resurgent Russia, Israel, Pakistan and more) is at stake! And here we have a biased media...a fad...a "movement" and an idiot with a checkered past in the final heat of the democratic process! God, please, help this nation and it's blind populace."

re: Decoding the Debates

odelljones — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:15:27 GMT

honestly, Obama doesn't say much.

re: Decoding the Debates

will_lane3 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:21:16 GMT

Stupidest candidate? He actually strikes me as quite intelligent. I find it hard to believe the Harvard-educated lawyer is the stupidest candidate; but judging by the fact you're trying to imply he is somehow related to Saddam Hussein, you're probably a dumb hillbilly.

re: Decoding the Debates

henbot — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:23:59 GMT

A general question for what it’s worth:

Does a president use debating skills to manage the Executive Branch and provide direction for the country?

I guess I'd rather have a president who is not always so concerned with being right on every point, but rather has the ability to apply judgment to the debate that swirls around them.

Do these debates give us insight into how the candidates will weigh the options placed before them and then make decisions that are in the best interest of the country?

re: Decoding the Debates

dpharv — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:37:28 GMT

Thanks for the insightful analysis of the debate. I have long thought (especially MSNBC) that there is a visceral dislike in the media of Hillary. The blatant bias against her is frustrating to watch. I was one of the many people who were duped into voting for Obama in 2004, thinking he would work hard for us in Illinois, only to have him start running for President as soon as he got to Washington. His comment during the debate that he was named the co-chair of an oversight committee just as he started his presidential campaign, therefore had not had one hearing, is how he has handled his responsibilty (or lack thereof) of being a U.S. Senator. By a wide margin, Hillary is much more experianced and ready to lead our country. It's a shame the the electorate appears once again ready to elect the "good guy" who makes people feel good. It was a disaster the last time we did it, (think W) and it will be a disaster again. I only hope that people wake up and give Hillary the victories she so richly deserves in Texas and Ohio!

re: Decoding the Debates

cbeltran70 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:39:24 GMT

NBC News, Meet the Press, & Fox News (cable) are all products of major interest groups. This is so sad that these bought out news networks once used to be fair when it came to bringing the issues to the people; now, they pick and choose questions for a particular person. That Tim Russert (one of many) has really been testing Hillary Clinton's patience. Maybe Hillary followers should protest against his unfairness in the media towards Hillary. He appears to be one of those OLD-fashioned, grumpy men that think women belong at home. The media should stop stating that Barack Hussein won debates. Maybe they need to watch different political blogs because from what I've seen most of the bloggers are for Hillary; and, they all say the same thing "if Osama...I mean Obama wins, then the Presidential vote will go to McAin. That is how I too feel.

re: Decoding the Debates

cbeltran70 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:40:43 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

bluethunder1962 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:04:21 GMT

The whole point about who went first was ridiculous. On the CNN debate, Obama won the draw and allowed her to go first. MSNBC probably has the same rules and maybe he won again and allowed her to first. Typically, in chess it is an advantage to go first. Going first gives you a chance to set a tone for the debate, convincingly make your point is another advantage. If you have your act together, you should jump at the chance to go first.

As for underestimating an opponent, it clearly states in his book, "The Audacity of Hope", he taught law and loved to teach and essentially debate with his students. Clinton, who I'm sure has had her staffers, or even herself, read his book should have recognized this about him.

But then, the Clinton camp has underestimated him the entire time. So, this is another odd way to undermine his exceptional abilities.

re: Decoding the Debates

ggaryg — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:05:28 GMT

To the poster who thinks a president needs to have been in a war to understand what war is all apout I would suggest that argument works both ways. Neither Bush, Cheney, Reagan or neocons such as Paul Wolfowitz ever served in active duty. Many of the people who pushed the hardest for us to get into Iraq pushed just as hard to get a deferment when it was their time to serve. One can make, and the argument has been made, that their collective lack of real miltiary experience contributed to their total misunderstanding of the consequences of invading Iraq. I would say given the choice between experience and judgement, I would choose judgement every time.

re: Decoding the Debates

ThaDragonSourceRa — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:05:42 GMT

I think America is ready for change. Change that we can believe in. The change that has a history of solidity behind, that shows truth. The truth of the Constitution and following that sacred document to the T. This person is 10 term Congressman, Ron Paul. Google Ron Paul and find out, how he walks and votes his talk. For all those who dislike illegal occupations, the new politically correct name is "War", Ron Paul is for immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq and eventual closure of Afghanistan occupation. Only congress can declare war, which makes the President, then Commander in Chief, in a declaration of War. There was no declaration of war, the last time this occurred was WWII. The reason WWII was jusitified is America was attacked and threatened by actual nations, not individuals. Everyone has been manipulated and lied to as we strive and move away further from the Constitution, which is the only reason we are and became a great nation. If I could not have Ron Paul in office, I then would have to support Barack H. Obama, for having the decency and vision for change and ending of this unwinnable occupation. You cannot win against those who view themsevles as freedom fighters against the largest enemy in the world. Has this strategy of fighting even proven winnable? Ask yourself how much more in the banruptcy toilet you want America to go for bad foreign policy? How much more should Communist China (I thought we were against Communism?) and other NOW newly rich Arab nations, due to oil price insanity, buy us for bottom dollar? Soon they will own more and more American corporations and all our national debt. America lead by the President of the United States of America must stop encroaching on the rights of all people, both internally and externally, in the name of LIEs. Awaken Truth, Ron Paul President 2008.

re: Decoding the Debates

sharbob — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:08:49 GMT

Thanks for the piece. At last someone who can call it like it is. Great job of interpreting the facts. I stopped listening to the pundits long ago. I am now making up my own mind about the debates. What comes out clearly from the debates is the experience and capability of Hillary Clinton. Yes, experience does count. I feel if I go with Obama, I'll be taking a chance and the country can not afford a chance-taker at this time. McCain seems to have good judgement on matters of war. But overall, Hillary Clinton has solid policies on all aspects of foreign policy, the economy, immigration, and the war . I'm afraid not many people reason the way I do though. Some people just want inspiration or protection!

re: Decoding the Debates

bduka — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:11:56 GMT

I hate this experience thing.. It'll backfire come McCain time. Sen. Clinton is way less experienced than McCain- he'll beat her at her own argument ..hes been a Senator since 1987 (1982 was in congress) . If thats not experience I dont know what is. It's interesting that in 2001 she ran against Lazio, a 3 or 4 term Congressman from NY( 1993 to 2001) with more experience ... I guess the people of NY didnt need experience then. Its politics as usual... with the exception of the VP ( in some cases) this president thing will be brand new for everyone including a former first lady. She's a tough lady ( anyone dealing with Bill would have to be ) and he's smart. Obama will have to hone his skills if he getss the nod vs Mcain though.... McCain has a sharp tounge. if Clinton wins the nomination... beware the carnage and accusations from both camps.

re: Decoding the Debates

Lorretta — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:14:10 GMT

Racist or sexist remarks have no place in this debate. Each person must make up their own mind based on knowledge of the issues and the candidates' plans for dealing with them. Unfortunately, in an age of twenty- four hour news, the media in all its forms, have decided that their opinions and constant analysis are worth more than fact and truth. And the bias has clearly been in favor of Senator Obama. The SNL sketch about Obama-love was funny because there was an element of truth in it. Russert and Williams set a terrible tone to the debate by instantly showing clips of Hillary Clinton and attacking her on them, not the issues. Very much against journalistic integrity. Of course, Obama supporters are okay with this because it is their candidate who is being unfairly favored. Russert finally lobbed a couple of hard questions at Obama, which is the first I have seen, in a while. Still, too little,too late. Clinton has a far longer history of public service, making her an easier target. Perhaps it is laziness on the part of the talking heads and media mouths who don't want to actually do research and ask tough questions of both candidates. Their job is to give us facts, so that we are an informed public.

re: Decoding the Debates

perfectdirection — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:14:47 GMT

I appreciated the fair and balance response of the debate. Thank you

re: Decoding the Debates

nightfall — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:20:56 GMT

I agree with herbiemax 100%. Judging by your post I couldnt really tell who you are supporting. Me myself, I am a Obama supporter. I have been very put off by the Clinton campaign and their tactics for the last couple of months or so. Spreading lies, and accusing him of doing things that she herself has done etc.. But... I thought that the last debate on MSNBC was totally and extremely unfair towards Senator Clinton. Prior to the debate when ever I heard or read that a viewer felt someone was being unfair to her I thought it was BS. Because I watched the same event. But it was as if they were trying to recreate the SNL skit literally.I hated her for a little while because of her tactics, but just like I want the playing field to be fair to Obama , I want it to be fair for Clinton as well. Then after a series of tough questions for her in a row, they ask her about Obama being electable in November. Knowing she couldnt speak her mind due to that fact that if she says no hes not electable and why if she loses to him, that thought might very well be carried over in the voters minds in November. I do want Obama to win but I also want Hillary, the media,news outlets,the republicans, etc., to give him hell to see how he takes it.

re: Decoding the Debates

denmill — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:23:41 GMT

I am a black woman, but I will not be fooled by Obama's Rhetorics. He is probably a nice person but he is sleek. At this time of Political and economic turmoil, OBAMA IS NOT THE PERSON THAT CAN SAVE AMERICA. He has too many ties with islam ( antisemetic Pastors, Farrhakkan, islamic Kenyan family ties). In addition, He is not comfortable with the real economic issues (China/ Russia, Iran/ Inflation). He can gather crowds by giving great inspirational speeches, but when he comes to deliver, he is cluless. If you watched the debate, he clearly turned to Hillary to answer the question about Putin, then agreed with her. This is a sign for concerns. That man is being backed up by some leftist political group and if America makes the mistake to get him the presidency, "they will be sorry". To me this issue is not about race (electing the first black man), it is about what 's best for America in these crazy times. As a black woman I am saying that Barack Hussein Obama is not the man in these scary times. Believe me this is not a scare tactic.

re: Decoding the Debates

denmill — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:24:23 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

Demarco2008 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:30:11 GMT

I used to wonder how a simple minded man like George Bush can become the leader of the free world. However, after reading a lot of the post here and on other sites, I see it is because there are a lot people in the general public who can relate to him.

re: Decoding the Debates

Demarco2008 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:37:10 GMT

Denmill,

Your post was so good, you had to do it twice. Right?

re: Decoding the Debates

BabylonBlue — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:41:05 GMT

Wow Demarco2008 you said exactly what i have been feeling since that horrid day 7 years ago... There is so much ignorance, hate, and stupidity out there in this country... that is why the Bush regiem has been able to thrive with out any objections... and with so many followers.. However to think there is a free world is very niaive, there is no such thing, just as there is no such thing as the tooth fairy or santa clause. Its all an illusion

re: Decoding the Debates

BabylonBlue — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:45:19 GMT

why is every one such islamaphoebes.... get over it!! Everyone here sounds like hitler when he was affraid of the jews... Look what that led to... the geonocide of a people and world war. stop the errogance and ignorance

re: Decoding the Debates

Demarco2008 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:46:28 GMT

BabylonBlue,

I guess I should say " the so-called leader of the free world"? Probably not. It sounds too close to "they hate us for our freedom".

re: Decoding the Debates

amksj123 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:49:40 GMT

I also thought the opening to the debate was extremely unfair, and seemed lke an attack. Although the SNL comment may have seemed liked whining, it was her way of letting the moderators know she wouldn't let them get away with it. I've seen a lot of footage from the various stump speeches, and they could have pulled a piece from Sen. Obama where he was making fun of Sen. Clinton's trips abroad as tea parties, and claiming his wife wouldn't try to run for office based on his record. Instead they chose something fairly uncontroversial, especially in comparison to the clips they showed of Sen. Clinton. I don't think there is a conspiracy by the media, but I think they are in the falling in love stage with Sen. Obama, and some, including Tim Russert have an obvious dislike for Sen. Clinton. In all fairness, he should not be allowed to moderate the debates. Did anyone happen to see the expectation on his face when he thought Sen. Clinton didn't know the name of the Russian candidate? His whole face lit up as he imagined hammering the last stake in Sen. Clinton's campaign. And, the laughing about her floundering like a fish afterwards, how is that professional? The American people deserve better. I can't help but fear that the media is handing the presidency to Sen. Obama on a silver platter -- oh, isn't he wonderful, he's knew, he speaks well, he's cool, it would open a new chapter for America ... blah, blah, blah. I for one would like to know more about who this man is, what has he accomplished, and does his track record match his rhetoric? I really don't care if he is running a great campaign, Bush ran a great campaign too, and look how he runs the country.

re: Decoding the Debates

48coop — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:55:03 GMT

Someone please explain the word 'moderator' to Tim Russert. If he wants to join the debate he should have announced his candidacy. What a scary thought.

re: Decoding the Debates

theglobetrotter — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:01:21 GMT

I find it interesting and short-sighted when people express their disinterest in voting for Obama based on his lack of experience. Voters were happy to elect and re-elect a man - George W. - who had NO experience in politics on a national level. (Being First Lady has much more in terms of "experience value" than being the son of a President.) However, I think people overlook the idea that presidents get a lot of help while in office. You may vote for a President, but you are electing an Administration. Further, I place a very high value on Obama's ability to galvanize. If he can galvanize a Senate to enact legislation that is going to help get this country moving in the right direction, I'll trade that for Hillary's experience in picking out White House china. In truth, I think Hillary would be an able President. BUT, I'll vote for Obama because all things being equal, I'll choose the candidate who I believe in. I'll choose the candidate who is willing to "think outside the box". I'll choose the candidate who offers me what the others do not.

re: Decoding the Debates

jmiddleton — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:05:45 GMT

You're right on Mister!

re: Decoding the Debates

Demarco2008 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:13:16 GMT

I think that the moderators were fair and balanced. They put Obama on the spot by asking the question about Farakhan. He did a good job deflecting it. He had to officially denounce and reject the Nation of Islam when they are a no-entity to his campaign, which I find ridiculous. She has been getting a free ride for a while in regards to her NAFTA statements. If you look at the last ten debates, I think it was split down the middle in rgards to who gets the first question. They really don't have anything to gill Obama on, except experience. However, his public service ( actually being in office) is longer than hers. If she wants to use her tenure as first lady, then she has to accept the Clinton failures as well as its accomplishments.

re: Decoding the Debates

NewsWkDickG — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:15:25 GMT

JA Ingram, thanks for a totally right on post. It said it all and very effectively. See: Posted By: JA Ingram (February 28, 2008 at 12:47 AM)

re: Decoding the Debates

mariaj — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:33:17 GMT

Mike/HI

Please use SPELL CHECK. (great sppeches). Where you looking in the mirror when the words stupidist , slum, drug abuser, uneducated, apathetic ignorant pop in your small brain.

re: Decoding the Debates

48coop — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:42:40 GMT

The point I was trying to make about the moderators is that it is up to the candidate to answer the questions (un-interrupted, hopefully) to the best of their ability. If there are holes or flaws in their answer, it is up to their opponent, not the moderator, to attack those flaws. And, of course, it's up to us viewers to try to see through all the crap.

re: Decoding the Debates

lillea — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:46:01 GMT

Cocky Sen Obama needs to remember a very important principle in life...."After pride comes a fall."

re: Decoding the Debates

mikel12 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:09:07 GMT

The Nation of Islam reference is overblown. After Malcom X was assassinated William F. Buckley's National Review published an appreciation of him that praised the slain leader for having "called on Negroes to seek education, respect their women, show pride in themselves, work hard, save their money and start a business." If it was OK for the National Review to sing Malcom X's praises surely it is OK for Obama to note some of Nation's positive influences on the Black Community while at the same time distancing himself from some of the Nation's more anti Israel comments.

re: Decoding the Debates

cece.borjeson — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:17:34 GMT

Responding to Mike/HI: I see you don't make any mention of G.W.B's cocaine & alcohol problems in the past. Just because other people don't see the world through the same prism as you does not make them blind.

Responding to Susan: regarding the blinking... the initial blinking by Obama was probably due to the studio lights, as he adjusted his blinking was less pronounced (have you every been in a tv studio? It's HOT and BRIGHT.) Do you remember seeing Dick Cheney a few months ago on TV behind the podium - didn't blink once over a period of several minutes, while Nancy Pelosi blinked repeatedly. Research indicates that not blinking is one common symptom of sociopathic personalities.

I have also read that the past president who had the MOST experience prior to being elected was Buchanan - the person with the LEAST experience prior to being elected was Lincoln. Buchanan was, by wide acclaim, one of the worst presidents this country has ever had (until GWB).

I was on the fence deciding between Hillary and Obama, and have decided on Obama for one very special reason: Hillary is a polarizing figure, who will find it much more difficult to reach across the aisles, and her campaign $ are coming from the top down. Obama has stirred the nation with the prospect of hope (which we are sorely in need of)... and his campaign contributions come from the bottom up.

Whoever you vote for, DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND VOTE ... and when you go to the polls, ask a friend to vote with you.

re: Decoding the Debates

Leonard S — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:19:10 GMT

I thought it necessary to respond to a particulr post. Denhill: First of all as a black MAN, I take umbrage with the terminology that you uased in describing the man. There is not proof of any ties to Islam or Islamic causes in the mans history, nor will you find any because thay just are not there. His pastor MET with the Libyan leader, not endorsed him. Is not anti-semetic, in fact hon many occasions has invited and welcomed Jewish rabbis to speack from his pulpir. As to Minister Farrakhen, he did not seek his endorsement, and has in fact on numerous occasions spoken against the more ant-semitic raings of the man, who you will ageree has and continues to provide a viable service to our community. If oyu fon't carwe for the senator, fine, that is your perogative. But don't go off half-cocked based on rumor or inneuendo. Look up the man's history. I think you will be more than a little surprised.

re: Decoding the Debates

liberal — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:41:19 GMT

I find it aggravating that so many are discounting Hillary and twist the facts about what experience she brings to the presidential table. Obama-supporters discount her experience as simply being "First lady" and border on sexism when they insinuate that she is nothing aside from her husband. Hillary was engaged in issues of national importance in the late 60’s/early 70’s well before she became first lady. Hillary has more national political experience than Obama, more foreign relations experience than Obama, more community activism experience than Obama, and more experience fighting for change and equality in this country than Obama. If you don't agree with her policies that it one thing, but don't twist this point into something it is not. Hillary has more experience than Obama, garnered this experience legitimately, and yes, Hillary, and any woman for that matter, is more than “her man”.

re: Decoding the Debates

lillea — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:48:26 GMT

What if we were within weeks of winning the war in Iraq and (say) Obama was elected. And out of stuborness, he brings the troops home just because HE wants to and as a result, the Iraqi people who have voted and struggled and buried their loved ones and worked their way back to having a democracy are all slaughtered byt the thousands by Al Queda. Would that be okay with you???

And what if the Al Queda cells in the US saw that our new president was weak and began slaughtering US citizens by the thousands. Would that be okay with you???????

It's something to think about.

I kindof like to step out of my house and not worry about mortar attacks. I like to go to the store without worring about IEDs.

I'm going to vote for the candidate that will promise they will do everything they can to keep me safe like I am now.

re: Decoding the Debates

Lococope — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:51:16 GMT

To Everyone Who has Posted,

Isn't it terrific that we all get the opportunity to express such divergent views as to who will be our next President. I find myself overwhelmed having just finished reading all the comments and opinions of so many people. I find that I am mistrustful of some of the things said by Mike/HI because he is clearly biased against Senator Barack Hussein Obama. Mike has a nasty habit of altering a word or leaving a word out to make his point. An example might be that Senator Obama admitted being a youthful drug "user". He was not an admitted drug ABuser. Mike, there is a big difference.

Mike, you say that Senator Obama is "the stupidist (sp) candidate for the presidencey (sp)" you have ever seen. I wonder if you are smart enough to make that kind of evaluation given the difficulty you have spelling "years', stupidist, presidencey,sppeches, polyanna. Perhaps you are, and we should just chalk those errors up to trying to type too fast.

Mike, didn't you hear what Senator Obama said regarding Minister Farrakhan. He said I "reject and denounce" his policies. How could he have been clearer that he has no ties or interest in anything the leader of the Nation of Islam has to say.

You call Senator Obama an idiot. He is an idiot who graduated from college. An idiot who went to Harvard Law. An idiot who served in the Illinois Senate, and who subsequently is now serving as the Junior Senator from Illinois in the United States Senate. He is the idiot who has over 1,000,000 people participating in his campaign. He is the idiot who has won eleven primaries in a row and garned over 1,200,000 votes. He is the same idiot who is backed by hundreds of newspapers in this country. He is the idiot who is married and has two children. He is the idiot who has put together one of the most sophisticated electronic election campaigns I have ever seen. He is the idiot who put this campaign together and hired the people who work for him. What an idiot!! He hired people who have done an amazing thing. His campaign team is beating Hillary Clinton. What a bunch of idiots!!

I wonder if maybe there is something else going on Mike. Do you have some other reason to dislike the Senator? Maybe you don't like black people. Maybe you don't like people who are successful. Maybe you don't like people who are realy smart.

I wonder if maybe it is not a "blind populace" that worries you. I wonder if it is the "color" blind populace that has you in such a state.

re: Decoding the Debates

EmilyWise — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:56:22 GMT

The very fact that Mike/HI who wonders whether "stupid, uneducated, apathetic, ignorant or just not paying attention or in a Polyanna world???" HAS NO CLUE that it is precisely the eductated, the more engaged, and the better informed who are supporting Obama, while the least educated, most ignorant, and disconnected who support Clinton says clearly the side of the awareness divide he is. Only such ignorant folks can cling to a tired political brand because that is the only thing they can recognize, not superior argument, not finesse, not honesty, not better, more nuanced policies, and not the positive change that Obama represents. If folks like these read the news, they would be asking why and be worried that somebody is NOT releasing her tax returns, her papers in the White House upon which the famthom 35 years of experience is based. Only informed eductaed people would be skeptical of what she is HIDING. The scary part of this is that even if she hides all this information in the primaries, she cannot hide it in general election, and the fact that there are likely things being hidden, which would then be exposed when Democrats would have lost the opportunity to choose another candidate is the reason the better informed and better educated electorate is voting Obama. Go Obama.

re: Decoding the Debates

jonpaugh — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:12:03 GMT

Those who want to dismiss President Clinton's Tenure as President as the wrong direction remember this, We didnt owe anyone money, Wages were up, Tech Jobs were being supported by government and thus boomed, we had a SURPLUS, this was all squandered by the gross overspending of money on this WAR. President Clinton has done more for this country as president for the middle class than anyone in the last 50 years. Why do people like to call Hillary a weak person because she stayed with her husband and worked it out with him, thats family values if you ask me. Unfortunate for Bill, he is just as perverted as pretty much every guy out there and got caught. I just want to say a couple more things, How much money, time, energy has gone into investigations on the Clintons, and how many of them resulted in an indictment ZERO. Obama himself 4 years ago said that he would not be ready for president in 2008 because of lack of experience, he also promised that he would fulfill his term as JR. Senator, he also promised to uphold a position as Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs and in almost over a year has not attended nor convened ANY meetings. This is not the kind of person I want to give training wheels to for President of US. This is volatile world with the threat of nukes, the economy, national security, war, foreclosure, we need someone who has real solutions for our country and the experience to make the difficult decisions without a teleprompt. If you are Democratic or Independent vote for Clinton, If you are Republican I know I cant make you vote against party lines, so vote for McCain. They are the 2 people that will be able to get this country out of this mess realistically. Whenever the media and the zombies out there wake up from the charms of a great speaker and repeater who will we have to guard our liberties, freedom, and the rights of ALL its citizens.

re: Decoding the Debates

BabylonBlue — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:18:05 GMT

lillea (February 28, 2008 at 4:48 PM) ..... you cant base your life on what ifs... the war in Iraq is not going to end in a few weeks or any time soon. there was no Al Queda in Iraq prior to our invasion of iraq like there is now. & to say there is democracy now in iraq is a joke.... its like saying there was democracy in iraq 10 years ago.. The military objectives of the united states is to stay in Iraq regardles of if Obma is going to bring the troops home or not. From this dday forward the united states will always have a base in Iraq. To bring our troops home means to bring the majority of the troops back.. There is no war to be won in Iraq. Its not a war for democracy or because of the injustices that the iraqi people have suffored nor is it for all those who were barried. It is a war for oil and presence in the region... The rest is just collateral damage

How can you state Obama is weak, when he sees solution in an alternative other than war. The roman empire fell becuase of its arrogance and military might... If we are not careful the fate of the US may be the same

re: Decoding the Debates

whenricks — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:22:00 GMT

In response to TJIRISH43 and others:

"Because I think Obama could be the real deal Mike. I am not blind Mike and I believe this country needs a Barak Obama as president. God help this country and populace that Obama can be what alot of people think he can become."

Are you are willing to bet your future on someone who "could be the real deal."? Maybe. That he "can be what alot of people think he can become." You want to elect him President and hope he turns into what you want? Hope he knows how to turn this country around. We look to a candidates past experiences because it is all we have to predict the future. What do you see in Obama's past that enables you to predict such a rosey picture of his future? I haven't seen anything from his past. He says he was against going to war. So was I. I told everyone within earshot everyday in the build up to war that it was a bad idea. That does not allow me to substitute my judment for those who were there in the Senate. I was not there getting intelligence reports and neither was Obama. I am not an Obama hater. I am not a Clinton supporter. I am unhappy with my choices. I am worried that in a year that should be a slam dunk by the Dems, we may end up with another Republican.

re: Decoding the Debates

SarahZK — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:45:23 GMT

The very fact that Mike/Hi is still wondering whether the American electorate whether "stupid, uneducated, apathetic, ignorant or just not paying attention or in a Polyanna world" evidences his own CLUELESSNESS rather than that of the electorate. The Obama electorate, as every well-informed person has know for months, is the better educated, the better informed, and the better engaged, while the Hilary Clinton electorate is heavy on the unedcuated, ignorant, uniformed, and disengaged folks who is general incapable to discern sound policy, honesty and the desire to steer the country away from special interests. The only thing the Clinton electrate are capable of recognizing is an old political brand name. That shows on the side that Mike/Hi is.

re: Decoding the Debates

whenricks — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:45:34 GMT

In response to EmilyWise: (wise is clearly something you are not)

"it is precisely the eductated, the more engaged, and the better informed who are supporting Obama, while the least educated, most ignorant, and disconnected who support Clinton says clearly the side of the awareness divide he is.

Are you really saying that anyone who supports Clinton is "ignorant, and disconnected"? It is people like you that make me afraid of the mob that is pushing Obama to the top. Are you one of the "educated" masses backing Obama? Because when I attended college a sentence like this was usually deserving of an F: "Only such ignorant folks can cling to a tired political brand because that is the only thing they can recognize, not superior argument, not finesse, not honesty, not better, more nuanced policies, and not the positive change that Obama represents." Although I have found yours to be a "not superior argument."

Is it possible for an Obama supporter to try to sway me to their side without any mention of Clinton (either one) or use of the words, "change" or "hope"? Sway me with what he can do for me. What does he plan for the economy, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Darfur, Russia, Healthcare?

Please give me some substance!

re: Decoding the Debates

SarahZK — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:50:10 GMT

Nice try, Mr. Romano. You are still amateurish in the art of propaganda, but keep practising with your committed work for Hilary Clinton. If you become more refined in the fall, you might well help Mr. Obama win the general election.

re: Decoding the Debates

wyl5326 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:56:50 GMT

Hill was finally able to point the only truth she hurled against Barack in the last debate - Barack's chairmanship of subcommittee on Europe and she uses his run for the presidency for failing to hold hearing. This is pure sour grapes for his presidential run have upset her own coronation and so should not have run on her turn ! At the same time, she keeps peddling her lies on the release of her WH papers going to be delayed by Bush ! Then there is her Hillarycare that she on record used the euphemism of "some mechanism" applied to a worker's wage in order to carry out a mandatory enrollment. ABC news forced her to tacitly admit it was wage garnishment which she is denying in the debate ! What a gal with the gall to pretend it was not so. No wonder she is considered the boy who cried wolf that the voters are already immune to her claims and just mind their own business ! She have already known that she have a high negative mark and blaming the media bias will be overlooking her negativity !

With her $35 million raised funds for February, it maybe too late to make any difference to her once bankrupt campaign as her campaign gleefully announced now. It just highlights how inexperienced and incompetent she really was, yet was so boastful with her slogan of "Ready on Day 1". How could she claim to be ready when she can't see how her campaign have floundered under her very detail oriented management campaign promise ? She is the real Talker and never a Doer.

re: Decoding the Debates

joesnuffy — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:59:26 GMT

I think that both Clinton and Obama have done well in the debates. Clinton seems to be a bit more of a polished speaker who can recall lots of details in her answers. But, on the other hand, she comes across as very rehearsed. I don't know if we have ever seen the "real" Hillary. Obama isn't quite as smooth. But, he seems more thoughtful, genuine, and sincere. I think as far as debaters and speakers, they are both good - way way better than our current president.

But, more important to me is their judgement and integrity. On possibly the most important issue of our time - the Iraq War - Obama had the forsight, the vision, and the cajones to vote against authorization to invade Iraq. This vote went against a very strong political tide and was quite risky. Most politicians, including Hillary, despite possibly having their doubts, buckled under the political pressure and voted yes . He gets HUGE points in my book on this. Obama also displayed this judgement on votes such as NAFTA and the bankrupcy bill. He just seems to have better judgement than Hillary and will stick to his guns.

The last point is his stance regarding foreign policy. He seems to understand that a significant reason we are hated by many is our arrogance. The issue about how you deal with Cuba going forward is a perfect example. Hillary will take the Bush approach and refuse high-level dialogue unless concessions are made up front. He seems to get that people will be more open and responsive if you treat them with respect and will rebel if bullied. To me, it's a huge issue in thewar on terror and our effort to keep ourselves safe.

Obama certainly will not be perfect. But, I believe he is our best bet among these candidate and is at least a step in the right direction.

re: Decoding the Debates

wyl5326 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:11:32 GMT

I got the feeling that the Clintons are now preparing to accept their

debacle and setting the media for the blame later. Hill's continued whining on

her campaign stump will not earned her any more votes and might even turn-off

her potential voters. If she is that smart, and I don't believe she is, then

her stump should not be about whining. Her accusation of media bias did not

reflect reality and their continued delusion that they are well loved and very

popular. Bloomberg's announcement of not seeking the presidency is actually a

concession that his candidacy is co-terminus with Hill's run, because he just

can't let Hill become the president. Another thing that the Clintons didn't

know about is that they are suffering from MADD - Media Adulation Deficit

Disorder, resulting in her becoming a Whiner !

With Super delegates now slowly trekking into Barack's camp, it is very

likely that she will again suffer another humiliating defeat in Texas and OH

next week. Lewis have officially switched and this would have a net effect of 2

on the delegate count.

re: Decoding the Debates

Dr.Lamot — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:38:59 GMT

Go Obama! You're a uniter.

re: Decoding the Debates

Grandma B — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:36:01 GMT

Scary Blogs. If you don't agree with me then you are Stupid ect. I remember another country that went down the primrose path behind a "pied piper". And woke up to the horror of their mistake. As did the world around them. Pretty scary situation, when we have had 7 years of an administration who thinks laws are made to be broken, civil liberties mean nothing,and privacy is for a select few, The things that are being argued here for the most part are superficial. Lets get down to the serious stuff. The economy is in the tank. The dollar is now worth 1/3 of what it was a year ago. More and more people are homeless and without healthcare breeding illnesses that are resistant to current medicine, lack of sufficient food, kids growing up without proper education. I want to know what the folks running for president are planning to do about the lack of jobs. How come our young people are being killed in a war with no end? Why is it that the ones coming back are not getting proper treatment for the effects of that war? I am hearing none of these things talked about. All I hear is empty words. And who is raising the most money to waste on a "beauty contest." I had a lot of respect for Mr. Russert until now. I have listened regularly to his program for years. That has come to a screeching halt. I am not a religious fanatic, but It's time for any one who prays to beceech their God for this country. Things are getting very crazy.

re: Decoding the Debates

Grandma B — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:36:09 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

claudiab70 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:54:49 GMT

I agree with herbiemax. What I would like to know is who regulates these debates? Who oversees that these debates. I've seen and read many blogs that have stressed about the unfairness that Hillary has endured overtime during the these debates. Somewhere out there, someone should be held accountable for William and Russert's unfairness.

re: Decoding the Debates

claudiab70 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:55:50 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

eddiewhere — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:15:22 GMT

IN THIS ENVIORNMENT OF ECONOMIC FEUDALISM WHERE THE MIDDLE CLASS MUST SUFFER IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE pROFITS OF MULTINATIONAL CORpORATIONS, WHO BENEFIT FROM CHEAp LABOR, THE AMERICAN DREAM HAS BEEN LOST.

MULTINALTIONALS FROM INDIA HAVE BROUGHT THEIR CHEAp WAyS TO AMERICA. WE NOW HAVE AMERIANS GOING TO GET HEART SURGERy IN INDIA BEAUSE IT IS CHEApER. OUR INFORMATION TECHNOLy JOBS HAVE BEEN OUTSOURCED TO INDIA.

CHINA WAITS UNTIL WE INVENT IT AND THEN THEy STEAL IT. WHy REINVENT THE WHEEL.

ARABS FINANCIERS OWN OVER TWELVER pER CENT OF OUR ECONOMy AND IN RECENT MONTTHS HAVE "BAILED" OUT OUR BANKS. IN ADDITION, ARAB INTEREST FROM DUBAI AND KUWAIT HAVE FINANCED OUR pOLITICAL LEADERS ENDEVOURS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE pOLITICAL SpECTRUM.. IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE.

We have been fooled by our own government and there is no way any Republican is going to win this election. THE Middle class has had it with all this Bin LADEN terrorist crap. WE are now scared of our own government more than we are of the terrorist because the decisions this government is making on our behalf is not in our best interests and it is killing us. The government is now dominating our civil liberties. They are giving the states millions for Real ID Cards. This is just the start of government intrusion. Combine this with the misuse of the Patriot Act and the future Plans of insurance comPanies and corporations to have full access to our personal records and we have a real crisis.

Credit Card companies have already started selling and sharing our personal information with the private sector. We really have to wake up and protect our constitution it is all we have to defend ourselves against interests that become too rich and powerful in this country. The government keeps expanding and is being predominantly controlled by special interest and lobbyist. The middle class is being weakened and our civil liberties are being threatened. Real ID Cards will not make "us safer" infacat terrorists can obtain fake ones and move about freely. The American people did not vote on Real ID Cards, we need a vote. Our constitution would have to be ammended in order for Real ID's to become legal. I do not know what has happened in Washington but it is getting out of hand. They know what they are doing is unconstitutional so they are trying to bribe the states by offering them money. I hope every state agrees with me and Prevents the federal govenment from imPosing THIS unconstitutional law. If the states allow the government to do this then they would have set a bad Precedent that could lead to further government violations.

WHy IS THERE A NEED TO WIRE TAp EVERy CITIZEN. ARE yOU KIDDING ME. yOU NEED A WARRANT. THIS IS MADNESS. GOVERNMENT IS USING TERRORISM AS AN EXCUSE TO INTRUDE ON OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. THIS IS INSANE.

McCain will continue to implementt these misguided REpublian policies. McCain's ONE HUNDRED year agenda is not in AMERICA"s BEST INTEREST.

re: Decoding the Debates

eddiewhere — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:15:45 GMT

THIS DEBATE WAS NO DRAW. OBAMA CLEARLy WON THIS DEBATE. IT ACTUALLy WAS A LOT LIKE THE SATURDAy NIGHT LIVE SKIT. OBAMA GAVE TREMENDOUS ANWERS TO NUMEROUS QUESTIONS. HILLARy WAS COMpLAINING AND CUT OFF By COMMERICIAL BREAKS AND TIMMy RUSSERT. TIMMIy IS FUNNy GUy . HE MADE ME LAUGH THROUGHOUT THE DEBATE.

HILLARy AppEARED WEAK ON NAFTA AND THE IRAQ WAR. OBAMA GAVE TREMENDOUS ANSWERS TO THESE ISSUES AND STOLE THE FOREIGN pOLICy ISSUE FROM HER.

THE QUESTION CONCERNING HILLARy'S TAXES WAS THE TURNING pOINT FOR ME BECAUSE IT WILL SHOW THAT A LARGE pORTION OF THE MONEy THEy RECIEVED WAS FINANCED By INTERESTS IN DUBAI AND OTHER ARAB FINANCIERS. THIS IS A FACT,

SHE CLEARLy WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE TAX ISSUE AND HAD A HARD TIME GIVING A STRAIGHT ANSWER.

HILLARy'S MAIN pOINT IN THE DEBATE WAS THAT SHE WAS A FIGHTER. WHAT HAppENED,

OBAMA TURNED IT AROUND ON HER By pOINTING OUT THAT SHE FOUGHT WITH FACTIONS WITHIN HER OWN pARTy AND EXCLUDED pEOpLE LIKE BRADLEy FROM THE DISCUSSION ON HEALTH CARE. HE pROVED THAT HILLARy'S FIGHTING ATTITUDE WILL NOT GET BILLS THROUGH BOTH HOUSES.

re: Decoding the Debates

eddiewhere — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:15:46 GMT

HILLARy AppEARED WEAK ON NAFTA AND THE IRAQ WAR. OBAMA GAVE TREMENDOUS ANSWERS TO THESE ISSUES AND STOLE THE FOREIGN pOLICy ISSUE FROM HER.

SHE CLEARLy WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE TAX ISSUE AND HAD A HARD TIME GIVING A STRAIGHT ANSWER.

HILLARy'S MAIN pOINT IN THE DEBATE WAS THAT SHE WAS A FIGHTER. WHAT HAppENED,

re: Decoding the Debates

Grandma B — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:39:02 GMT

I can't trust someone who can't look me in the eye. The posture of the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar tells me a lot. Neither rep nor dem. What is he doing on the democratic ticket? I believe we have a name for it - the independent ticket. I am an independent voter. No crime in being independent. There is deception when you claim the label of either party and expouse none. I have been looking at this man, my senator, since I voted for him. All I have seen and heard because I have conacted his office on many issues, is nothing. No response. Apparently I don't count and my opinons are of no value. He knows best and feels no need to tell me his opinions, reasons for his vote or lack thereof. He's doing his thing and the people who elected him are of no concequence. Remind you of anyone???????

re: Decoding the Debates

Grandma B — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:39:02 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

Grandma B — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:39:06 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

Grandma B — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:41:44 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

Grandma B — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:41:45 GMT

re: Decoding the Debates

RTGO — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:53:25 GMT

Mike/HI ,

For a moment there I thought you were talking about George W. Bush. But to answer your question of "What in the world is wrong with the American electorate" is the American people are now paying attention. We are no longer frighten by the kind of alarmist talk that you just engaged in your post. American's are smart enough to recognize what kind of tactic are at play when people like yourself include Senator Obama's middle name when referring to him. This is the same tactic used against Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi when she was in line to be the Speaker of the House.

I know it must be disheartening to learn that you are a one trick pony and the audience is no longer impressed with your one trick. So you do what all one trick ponies do ...you blame and lash out at the audience. Good luck, we have seen this before too and we are still not impressed.

re: Decoding the Debates

harriscrl3 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:53:52 GMT

Maybe Obama has his finger on America's pulse more than Hillary and others. Perhaps its because unlike Hillary and the others he doesnt lie about his mistakes he doesnt try to cover them up he is honest. When ask about the Senate committee at the debate he doesnt use political fluff to avoid or evade the question. He answered that he was running for President and didnt have the time. When they quibble with semantics about reject and denounce he concede the point. Unlike Mrs. Clinton who still WILL NOT admit that she made a mistake voting for the war but feel like she has the right to chastise someone because he doesnt reject strong enough. Unlike Mrs. Clinton who says I didnt do my taxes because I dont have time after she stated that she will release it when she wins the nomination. Then she said that her records when she is supposedly doing all this stuff that made her Foreign policy candidate extraordinaire she blames it on Bush and that turns out to be suspcious.

Perhaps its because when he didnt win NH he basically said that they didnt do what they needed to do in their Campaign when Hillary lost ten in row these are her excuses: The states he won are red states so democrats and those states dont matter, We dont do well with caucases, Potomac states are heavily AA. His constituents are made up of Latte sipping birki wearing trustfund babies, or the wisconsin which is a state she was SUPPOSE to win a swing state it doesnt matter: Even though he cut into her base to the point where he won all of it except old women over 60 it doesnt matter, then there is the media whining even though the media was giving her so much positive press she was a shoe in. It was a foregone conclusion that she was going to be the next president. A lot of people more qualified than her MOVE out of the way so she can reach her dream. Yet it took a 3 year senator a 3 Year SENATOR to show how weak and flawed she was as a candidate for US Presidency. But of course she is not riding on her husband's success she is doing it all on her own strong woman beating sexism and the glass ceiling. Yet Obama who has to deal with racism ethnocentrism because of his name, not to mention inexperience new to the political scene who is not griping about his race or being discriminated against because of his religion has come and SURPASSED her.Excuses after excuses for her failures. Then you have Obama who oppose the war from the beginning who says that the need to target Al Quaeda base in pakistan something that Bush is (now doing) after Obama said it. Who didnt just give a speech opposing the war but in fact said that it will do all the things its doing distracting us from Pakistan and Afganistan fanning Anti american sentiments costing lives and billions of dollars. Hillary when she autorize the war Oh let Bush have it. It will be over soon. Perhaps the American people see clearer than some with our opinonated response that we want to pass off as truths.

Carol

re: Decoding the Debates

deacmama — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:01:49 GMT

Very insightful Professor Lauden!

I have been watching these debates with my husband and 18 yr old son. For what it's worth, this 50 year old Wake Forest educated lawyer -- registered republican in a heavily democratic state but with track record of independent voting (I have never missed a vote since I was 18 - primary included) -- working full-time but still a soccer mom -- socially "liberal" although I detest those labels (pro-choice & gay right, anti-Guantanamo) -- voted for GWB but highly disappointed in his performance and our choices last time --I'm seriously considering voting for Obama. So is my son. Even my husband cannot tear himself away from the debates. Whatever "it" is that defines leadership charisma, Obama has it.

And I'm with Prof. Lauden in believing that "rhethoric matters." The ability to persuade, articulate, and inspire through words -- oral and written -- is critical to effective leadership. That is certainly one of the lessons that the GWB presidency should have taught us all.

re: Decoding the Debates

deacmama — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:25:50 GMT

Mea culpa -- Prof. Louden (with an "o")! Spelling also matters . . . .

re: Decoding the Debates

admiralh — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:53:54 GMT

To Mike/H1:

I'm surprised you're able to take time from your busy schedule of watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh to post here.

re: Decoding the Debates

oldgitsalesp — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:54:05 GMT

In a few days or weeks at best, the lions share of differences between these two will be sorted out by the voters. Clearly, Obama has created and capitalized on a groundswell of support due to the Republican mishandling of a whole host of issues over the past 7+ years ... He could not have run at a better time as a Democrat, nor could he have created a better situation to campaign against due to the sad shape of the economy and the profound effect it has had/is having on the lives of average American. Most of us are AVERAGE Amaricans ... make less that $250k, have someone in our family that is older (senior ) or marginalized, are sick of a failed foreign policy that has squandered any good will America had pre GW Bush/post 9/11, tired of seeing Americans die for a lie and watching gas prices sky rocket, have been victimized by corporate greed,outsourcing... This "perfect storm" of a situation could not have been better for the Dems. Conversely, Hillary has seemingly projected a sense of entitlement since she sat thru the Bill and Monica public bashing (aka - impeachment for sex crimes) and so she comes off angry at times because Obama is in the way of her turn at be President. Perhaps, this is the only reason she stayed with Bill, as I am sure he agreed to "make her Prez" one day. Given, she is very talented, a policy wonk and on point with the facts and figures - she WILLNOT be the Dems candidate short of Obama making a huge mistake like jumping overboard into the perfect storm.

Americans REALLY want change and relief, so much so they will elect Obama vs. McCain who is too closely aligned to Bush if only by party affiliation vv lack of conservatism. Make NO mistake it is one thing to get elected ... it will be something else to get meaningful legislation authored and passed. Appealing to the "people", and the ground up method of getting things on the national legislative agenda will piss off the Congressional folks by exposing them ... but historically has been very effective by the great communicator type of Presidents of the past - regardless of party. Two to three years into the Obama presidency and we will see what he has really accomplished. Meanhwile, style and savvy will win out over an entitlement/old school clothed in designer pant suit approach ... THIS TIME!