F*ck Mankiw. The Democratic leadership needs to stop making up to enemies.

Although watching Krugman and DeLong take turns beating Mankiw with whips would be entertaining.

Get rid of Tim Russell?

YOU try moving that load of my television.

I can certainly get behind tossing Russert's buffoonery off the air.

But...you're either unaware of or choosing to ignore the real reason behind Garance's objection here: she's for Hillary-Hillary-Hillary, and anything that interferes with the coronation is not to be tolerated.

And, I'm sorry -- the Peru trade deal? Gosh...I can just see America leaping to its feet when such a scintillating topic is raised.

Step 3: Profit!

I would personally prefer that Larry Kudlow run a debate, and talk exlusively about tax policy. I mean, really--who cares about any of these other issues out there?

I want a moderator who will actually "moderate" a debate, and score the responses on a tally board. Then, with ten minutes left, the also-rans and that Kucinich fellow can be led from the stage with their vanity shattered and the top three points-getters can duke it out.

Larry could shout a topic at them and give them five seconds to state their position. If correct, he could give them a point. If wrong, he could take away a point. If this was done for five or six minutes, the top two candidates left standing could then give a 25 second summation of what they would accomplish as president. If wrong, Larry could dismiss the person he thought was the most incorrect on the issues and the top person would then "win" the debate.

I want to hear that buzzer sound from the old "Family Feud" show when someone gets a question wrong. I want to hear a lightning bolt when someone gets in a good insult. The sound of a person yawning would be used to cut off a rambling Rosie. A gentle chiming sound, like wind chimes being turned over by a soft autumn breeze could play when someone is saying something that is correct.

Oh, and no podiums. Everyone must stand with the feet together and their hands behind their back. Good posture is, above all, the most important thing.

More free advice from Kevin on the Dems can cope with the media loathing that they have to endure. LOL

Russert's still pissed at her from the last debate he co-hosted when she one-upped him by stating "Bill's not standing here, I am..." By the way, she got away with that answer, even though she trumpets the good old days of the 1990's constantly. She can't have it both ways, either she is running on his record or she isn't.

Rep. Kucinich should have bluntly told Tim Russert to fuck off when he brought up the UFO sighting. That would have won him greater support than anything else he could have said.

Step Three: Make her open the box. I believe that's what it is, anyway.

Seriously, step three: arrange for a venue for the debate that allows for an informative discussion, rather than steering candidates toward 'gotcha' moments for the sake of ratings. I have no idea who has enough bandwidth to stream a debate to all who might want to see it, but if you can pair an online service w/ a C-Span or PBS, you might have something good.

More bullshit from Chicounsel on the hackneyed myth of the "liberal media." LOL

Fourth step: stop making the debates themselves such a big deal. There's plenty else going on out there worth picking up on in terms of information and strategy, and the debates are becoming too focused on trying to produce telegenic "got'cha" moments.

Step 3 - Do the same for television news in general. Dump the pundits and anchors, go to actual reporters, experts, and people with relevant knowledge and involvement for news stories.

Is anybody really watching either party's "debates" ? I know I'm not the least bit interested.

Granted, I'll be voting for cardboard drenched in 1000 Island dressing if it has a (D) after it but there's no "there" there in these events.

First step: get rid of Tim Russert. Ugh. He's a terrible interviewer and a terrible moderator.

Stop holding back, Kevin. He's also a terrible analyst and editor. Tune into NBC news and election coverage and see if you don't need to open the windows once he starts his blather. He's always sure of himself, and he's never right.

Has anybody looked into how his influence has retarded and distorted NBC's Washington coverage?

Democratic Debates Show Why Fred Thompson Should Be President

As I watched the Democratic Debate yesterday I realized how important it is that Fred Thompson win this election.

Does America really want:

Expansion of federalized health care.

Higher taxes associated with all the "big government" programs proposed by the Democratic candidates.

Weak stances on terrorism.

General expansion of the federal government.

I don't think America will choose the direction the Democrats want to take America. I don't think America can afford the direction the Democrats want to take America.

If you believe in consistent conservative values and the ideas of our founding fathers, Fred Thompson is the clear choice for you.

Step 3: a unified raspberry to the corporate 'journalists' by the entire field. MSNBC is owned by GE and all of the moderators its employees. All of the candidates should have started every answer with that description of their questioner.

e.g. "Thank you for asking that question, Mr. Russert, who has been a corporate employee of General Electric for most of his career. In regards to UFO's, unidentified flying objects have no importance in this debate, especially when considering the environmental destruction that General Electric has done to many parts of the US. Mr. Russert have you ever dumped PCB's in the Hudson River while an employee of GE?"

Wow, that was really profound, Doug. It's always good when grade-schoolers get involved in the political process.

Meanwhile, as the rest. Has the country shown any interest in the nation's economy? I mean, what does that have to do with sex and kicking asses? Or is just that those are things media managers are comfortable talking about.

If you believe in consistent conservative values and the ideas of our founding fathers, Fred Thompson is the clear choice for you.

Sir, I've been a Republican all of my life, and even I don't believe Fred Dalton Thompson could name you three of the Founding Fathers or explain a Strict Constructionist's view of the Constitution without reading from a cue card.

Are you some asinine little campaign worker? Get back on the phones and raise money, you twerp. Better yet, get someone who knows what they are doing a cup of coffee. Let those of us who actually run the Republican Party handle the big issues.

I think the candidates in consultation with their media consultants should just decide on an image to present to the public and make TV commercials.

why cant candidates talk to each other? ask each other questions?

It never feels like a debate, it feels like students passing orals.

Step three: enforce time limits by turning off mikes.

Step 3: Profit!

Exactly. I really don't understand how Kevin had a problem coming up with Step 3. It's Step 2 that confounds the best schemes.

we need a progDEBATE with markos, duncan, kevin, & yes sully.

would be far better than timmy.

Step 4: keep people like Kevin Drum away from sharp objects - they will only hurt themselves.

step 3? Easy, let INKBLOT into the debates.

Tim Russert is a bought-and-paid-for shill for the Republican Party, which is, like Russert, owned by America's ultra-rich corporate-feudalist ruling class.

Of course Russert goes after Hillary Clinton. She is the candidate that the Republican Party expects to be running against. It's Russert's job to start laying the groundwork for bringing her down. He can throw the other candidates "softballs", because they don't matter (the Republicans don't expect to have to run against them) and because that allows them to use their time to put additional pressure on Clinton.

And of course it is always essential for the Russerts of the world to ignore or ridicule Dennis Kucinich, even though he "can't win" anyway, simply because when he does get to speak he speaks some very dangerous truths that the corporate ruling class just doesn't want uttered on TV. Ever.

Let those of us who actually run the Republican Party handle the big issues.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Rogers has adopted his "Captain of Industry" persona to trick the attendants into giving him a day pass today.

Ditching Mr. Potato Head Russert would indeed be a good first step. He is so obviously anti-Clinton it is like having a cannibal moderating a vegan debate. Russert should be breaking rock in a federal penitentiary for his involvement in outing the brave Valerie Plame.

Further, why is it that they can ask a Democrat like Kucinich about UFOs and they never ask Rudy Giulian why he likes cross-dressing or why he lived with a homosexual couple when his second wife booted him out? If they are going to ask inherently embarassing questions of one political party, why don't they do it for both?

Of course, the answer to that question explains how George W. Bush, who has the longest criminal rap sheet of any president in history, can get through two national elections and never have to answer the question, "How many times have you been arrested?"

Ditch the pundits and news anchors entirely.

While it is not only legitimate but necessary for candidates to challenge one another, it is vital that they show that they can take on the Washington press corps and the Republicans.

During interviews, Democrats should make clear that they are here to talk to the public and not to the interviewer. The interviewer's participation in Whitewater, Monica, War on Gore, Iraq, Bush Worship, etc., should be thrown at them, and their credibility directly challenged.

Any debate format that involves ditching Tim Russert is a good one. He's the king of the faux-gotcha question: one that sounds tough, doesn't illuminate anything, and usually has a false or absurd premise to start with.

His first question last night: Would you guarantee that Iran would not become a nuclear power on your watch? He might as well have asked them if they'd guarantee a blizzard would not occur on their watch. They all did the best they could with it, saying they would certainly do their best to make sure that didn't happen, but obviously they could not guarantee it.

I'm tellin' ya, some candidate could have a real Sister Soulja moment by putting this a$$hole in his place. Start by shooting down the premise of the question - whether it's because it's ludicrous, like the Iran question, or it's factually flawed, like every Social Security question he has ever asked -- and then take it from there.

He is the absolute epitome of heat over light, and he should GO. Now.

Seminal Anal Cyst puts down his bong and writes:

Tim Russert is a bought-and-paid-for shill for the Republican Party, which is, like Russert, owned by America's ultra-rich corporate-feudalist ruling class.

"Feudalist?" Were this true, I would have serfs living on my land. In point of fact, I have deer living on my land. I cannot kill them fast enough. But Russert is not owned by the Republican Party. The International House of Pancakes owns that pancake eating bastard Tim Russert, sir.

Of course Russert goes after Hillary Clinton. She is the candidate that the Republican Party expects to be running against. It's Russert's job to start laying the groundwork for bringing her down. He can throw the other candidates "softballs", because they don't matter (the Republicans don't expect to have to run against them) and because that allows them to use their time to put additional pressure on Clinton.

So, if what you are saying is true, then liberals like yourself--who demonstrably hate Hillary Clinton--should actually be encouraged by the attacks made by the Republican Party, correct? Because you seem to be saying that Republicans DON'T want to run against her; in point of fact, we desperately want to run against her because she is the weakest possible candidate with the most baggage.

And of course it is always essential for the Russerts of the world to ignore or ridicule Dennis Kucinich, even though he "can't win" anyway, simply because when he does get to speak he speaks some very dangerous truths that the corporate ruling class just doesn't want uttered on TV. Ever.

What? That he's seen a UFO? And that he told Shirley Maclaine about it?

I used to have a thing about Shirley Maclaine. That era where she was in Two Mules for Sister Sara is what I'm talking about, NOT Steel Magnolias. Ugh! That movie gives me the hives. She looked like someone had put the drapes on her in that. I used to absolutely fantasize about being married to her and living in Hollywood. She would make movies, I would run my father's company, and we would drive around in a convertible. I'm telling you--wow! What a rear end on her.

But in conclusion--you're grasping. Hillary Clinton (there's a rear end you can't get out of your mind, not even with therapy or electro-shock) is the "establishment" candidate who is opposed by the "establishment." It's as if liberals don't have a clue.

I know! What else is new?

The dems need to hire the folks promoting the World Wrestling Federation (or whatever it's called now).

Turn the debates into what americans really want. Smoke bombs, laser beams, glitter, and the candidates tearing their shirts off while yelling at each other "I'll rip your eyes out!"

It's a guaranteed ratings winner.

I haven't read Garance's latest piece, but will. I noticed pretty much the same thing.

Russert sure is getting big for his britches these days. Yes, he was actively participating in the debate, and was trying to turn it into yet another "Meet The Press" gotcha moment.

Forget about it, though. He's not going anywhere. It's too bad there's not some viewer review process where we can grade the moderators.

Third step: I'm not sure. But there has to be a third step, right? It's the law.

3. Hi, Opal!

If that means nothing to you, just ignore it.

Normie must have gotten a new batch of meds today, or else has a tuft of Inkblots fur in his bong.

Posted by: DJ on October 31, 2007 at 3:20 PM

No, let Normie and Doug fight it out. It's amusing to have Republicans come here to teach us liberals some value lessons, and sqabble over said lessons when they get here.

Dennis Kucinich won me with his UFO sighting. We are getting Let's Get Kuci buttons made with a little space ship on it. Normie ought to see Mrs. Kucinich. Dem makes good. :)

Let's stop calling these shows debates. They are Q & As, and not very good ones at that. They reveal little or nothing. And I don't like TV people deciding who I get to see or hear in these things based on their half-assed criteria of who deserves air time. Mike G. is entitled as any to shoot off his mouth about whatever is on his mind. I don't like bloggers deciding, either.

Get rid of Tim Russert? But then how will we be able to listen to him shill for his own books, like "Big Russ and Me"?

Why don't we go one step further, and seriously discourage the concept of celebrity journalism in general? All too often lately, such people -- the dubious professional behavior of Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Tim Russert and Bob Woodward during the Valerie Plame affair comes immediately to mind -- have had a troubling tendency to insert themselves as characters into their own storylines, thus creating news instead of merely reporting it.

Chris is definitely right, Step 3 is profit. Maybe the gnomes could look to Kevin for help with step 2.

Norman Rogers: "Hillary Clinton (there's a rear end you can't get out of your mind, not even with therapy or electro-shock) ..."

Excuse me, but just who the fuck are you? Brad Pitt? You're exactly the kind of man (and in your case, I use that term very loosely) who makes straight women around you wish they were lesbians.

Ditto your thoughts Kevin. Russert is a ham. His hands were shaking and he could barely get a word out when he had his gotcha questions for Hillary, he was so excited. I felt the moderators were trying to do the other candidates work for them with the questions and it always seemed that the most aggressive attacks led of with her, then everyone else piled on, and she had no rebuttal since they would switch topics. I say get the pundits off the debate circuit and use panels of experts instead. Or let them all start arguing with each other on any topic they wish, with a moderator used to simply ensure that no one is left out.

Garance is a bright girl, but she's drinking the kool-aid if she thinks these things reveal anything positive about the candidates, or if she demeans the word "debate" by applying it to the joint press conference format. Lazy Fred Thompson has proposed real hour long debates between two canidates, why can't the Dems get behind that idea?

RollaMO @ 2:21PM "...either she is running on her record or she isn't."
Perhaps she (as a Democrat) is running on the record of the last Democratic president?

It's fair to say that in aligning oneself so closely to a candidate, particularly this early, one is necessarily going to be at least discriminating if not blindly prejudicial against every other candidate. Such is the way for horse races and politics, defined by von Neumannesque Game Theory. Consequently, much of what's being said for and against Hillary's performance last night is based largely on whether or not she's your horse.

For example, since when is more mic time disadvantageous? Ask Kucinich, who customarily receives minimal mic time, and whose courageous points were subordinated further last night with a question about UFO's, what he thinks about the heavy concentration on Hillary. Ask Dodd whether he would have preferred more mic time even if the questions were harsh and unfair.

No, sorry there was no piling on Hillary who again disproproportionately dominated air space. Had she not foolishly voted to categorize the Iranian guards as terrorists - an issue worth all the scrutiny it was given - and then, additionally, illogically associated that with aiming for diplomacy, then she could've used the extra time to her advantage. Unfortunately, for Hillary, her record has finally caught up to her.
What she needed was a miracle to spin a severe miscalcualtion into a positive result, not just the traditional soft shoe she and her husband have perfected so well.

As far as the NY DLs for immigrants issue, yes, as has been pointed out here, it's a state issue, but not unrelated to the immigration problem that exists specifically because the Feds neglected the issue. Truth be told, every federal and former federal legislator on stage should admit that. But do they? No, because the name of the debate game is to dodge, early and often, successfully and with elan. Moreover, Hillary's flipfloppery regarding the question is far more important than whether or not she's for or against the policy.

It was one of those insightful high beam moments that caught a deer in the headlights and she was frozen in a way that indicates she, like Bill, is more comfortable with the kind of wiggle room that will allow one to shift right, then shift left, in an effort to keep the middle. Why the middle? Beacuse that's where her heart lies? Nope. Because she's cut from the fabric of the great American masses? Nope. Because she lies awake at night worrying about 2 million incarcerated individuals and countless numbers of insane persons homelss and roaming our major cities? Nope. Because that's where the votes are.

So, unlike the other candidates, her vestigial Republicanism, wrought from the Me First ethos of Ayn Rand, is tugging against the necessity to hug unwashed souls. There's a dialectic at work that pits the prospects for acting wisely even when it may not be popular against the incessant desires fueled by personal ambition. Even worse, deep in that psyche of hers, there's a deep attachment to Plato's proto-totalitarian Republic and Aristotle's notion of virtue being attached to privilege, which, of course, she has to cover up with faux sentiments.

So far, up until last night she's been exceptionally crafty at doing a splendid job of fooling many of the people much of the time about that inner perspective. Time, however, caught up to her.

Who would've figured that NY DLs and immigrants would serve as the conduit to an enlightening moment of inner revelation? Last night, on that rather inane subject, she twisted in the wind, saying yes and saying no to the same question because she was caught with her guard down. And the point here is - and the reason to not forward her candidacy any longer - is that she needs a guard. Why? Because she's duplicitous, through and through.

Indeed, Hillary would be better off professionally being an ad executive or network producer responding to the prevailing sentiments.
Leadership? She doesn't have an ounce of it. And if you believe she does, then, quick, without using google, name five meaningful (binding) bills she wrote. Explain what true experience she's accrued in 35 years that relates to ruling the world. Stumped? Actually, it'd be easier running a mile on hot steaming coals.

"Ditch the pundits and news anchors entirely"

Kevin, EXACTLY RIGHT!

Doug, so then she shouldn't be "offended" when Russert brings up a quote from Bill and she says "he's not standing here, I am."

Kevin, I agree completely that we need to get rid of the media types in debates. Your suggestion is excellent and needs to be spread.

Kucinich..." simply because when he does get to speak he speaks some very dangerous truths that the corporate ruling class just doesn't want uttered on TV. Ever." - Secular Animist

You're absolutely right. And the funny thing is, Kucinich is mostly just talking basic, liberal/progressive sense. And that good sense, filled with imaginative views on a host of issues is simply not accepted as realistic, even to those who call themselves liberals, much less status quoists or conservatives.

As far as the NY DLs for immigrants issue, yes, as has been pointed out here, it's a state issue, but not unrelated to the immigration problem that exists specifically because the Feds neglected the issue. Truth be told, every federal and former federal legislator on stage should admit that. But do they?

Some do. That's precisely the response Ms. Clinton gave.

nepeta wrote: "And the funny thing is, Kucinich is mostly just talking basic, liberal/progressive sense. "

The dangerous thing, for the ultra-rich corporate feudalist ruling class, is that an awful lot of people of different political persuasions hear what Kucinich says, and think "Damn it, he's right".

If Kucinich looked like Robert Redford, he would have been elected in a landslide in 2004.

Here we go again...another poor Hillary post. Wah! Wah! Timmy Russert asks HRC a tough question and she flunks. So lets get rid of Tim. How Bush-like...

SecularAnimist: If Kucinich looked like Robert Redford, he would have been elected in a landslide in 2004.

Maybe that's why he married Elizabeth. He can do the dull politics/policy stuff, and she can be the eye candy (I'd rather look at her than Robert Redford anyway - your tastes may vary).

There's an added bonus too: since she's foreign born she can never run for president. I'm getting tired of dynastic politics anyway.

As for Kucinich the radical, I always ask people to name some of his "radical" positions. Oops - he don't have 'em. But the "common wisdom" says he's a radical, so he must be.

Without being too snarky this time....the democratic bloggers and HRC campaign must stop whining about Russert, his questions and accept that Hillary hedged and got caught. There's a larger issue...she won't be allowed to dodge the tough policy questions anymore.

Tim Russert is the very definition of "Cheney Ass-Wipe." Funny how you don't hear anymore how it came out during the Scooter Libby trial how the White House loved to go on Russert; he was and is their finest stooge. And he keeps doing Hillary a favor. Remember the 2000 NY Senate Race? How he did his first set up - complete with a Bill Clinton video; Rick Lazio piling it on. It backfired then, too. In a perverse way, Russert is her best friend, because his hatred and bullying of Hillary only makes her stronger.

Remember the term: Cheney Ass-Wipe

So I've been monitoring the press all day.
Guiliani, Romney, Obama and Edwards campaigns are all tooting their horns over Hilary's big loss and over how they came out of the "debate" looking so good.

All 4 of them taking credit for the win? I suspect in the long run that their monday morning quarter backing will backfire on them and that history will show Hilary gained from this.

But when you combine that with the fact that the moderators also seemed to be aiming most of their fire at Clinton

Eh. The "moderators" attacks on the various candidates (though I don't see how gotcha-games count as "moderation" in any sane sense of the word) were in pretty much direct proportion to the candidates poll standing.

That being said, the inter-candidate dynamics were more interesting in this debate than in the previous debates I've seen this season. I think we'd get better, more substantive, more interesting debates if we just let the candidates take turns moderating, with the only "outside" participant a timekeeper that pushed a button to start an automated countdown that controlled time for questions and answers, with mikes automatically cut-off when the appropriate time had expired.

**

Tell that to the Black voters of Florida or Ohio. BTW, all of those bozos listed: War criminals, according to our standards at Nuremburg back in '46.

"If only one candidate is being pressed about differences with other candidates, it is unfair to the voters who are also trying to evaluate the rest of the pack"

The other unfairness in focusing on HRC mostly is if she does weather more tough questions, or gotcha questions, than the other candidates then the viewers will probably think she's stronger than the other candidates.

First step: get rid of Tim Russert.

—Kevin Drum

Fuck Tim.

Rep. Kucinich should have bluntly told Tim Russert to fuck off when he brought up the UFO sighting.

Posted by: Brojo

Exactly. Do you think that Timmy has ever had a piece of ass like K's gf???

LEAVE HILLARY ALOONNNEEEE!!!!

Elizabeth is a FLILF (from the Daily Show).

I'm with E.R. Beardsley - it's absurd to call these things "debates". Unless and until the candidates are allowed to engage one another in direct questions, answers, and rebuttals, they're not much more than a series of wait-your-turn, one-on-one Q&A sessions being held simultaneously.

They don't deserve to be called debates, because they're designed to minimize if not entirely eliminate the ability of the candidates to illuminate the audience on their own strengths vis a vis the weaknesses of their opponents.

It would make it harder for politicians to hedge their bets on tough issues because they would be more likely to be called out on their equivocation by other candidates (and in a way that makes the questioning opponent seem stronger for the distinction). Yes, I know the candidates take jabs at one another, but there's a world of difference between the kinds of asides or critiques you get in a scripted soliloquy versus an actual debate/ dialog.

cmdicely's suggestion of having candidates be moderators for timed periods sounds like a good format. That survey by Democracy Corps indicated people are fed up with corporate favoritism. The talking heads on TV are the faces of that huge accumulated capital.

they can ask a Democrat like Kucinich about UFOs and they never ask Rudy Giulian why he likes cross-dressing

In 2004 when Russert interviewed Kerry he asked him if he still had nightmares about Vietnam. When Russert interviewed W. Bush, he did not ask him about his alcoholism. But Russert is not the only one. A few weeks ago Katie was in Iraq kissing Petraeus ass.

"Second step: put together a panel of Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, and Greg Mankiw to moderate a debate on economic issues. Find equally eminent subject matter experts to moderate debates on other subjects. Ditch the pundits and news anchors entirely."

Unfortunately this isn't acadamia. If it's on TV then it's entertainment, not information.

Second, analytical skills and presentational skills are not the same thing. Krugman is a great writer and a brilliant man, but might make a terrible interviewer.

Think of all the freakshow university professors Fox news interveiws.

This is amazing. Russert, former asssistant to Tip O'Neil, is somehow biased against democrats?

And wild eyed Krugman is an eminent subject matter expert?

The problem is that Hillary refuses to answer questions in an honest or straightforward manner.

Third step is to get a cat for the next moderator.

Third step is to abolish both Parties. Republicans prey on fear of terrorism and moral decline and Democrats prey on fear of economic hardship. Both tell you you don't have the power to run your own life.

The third step is this: Elect Democrats.

If Democrats solidly controlled all three branches of government, they could banish Timmy by simply refusing him access and force the media to hire somebody with a hint of 'objectivity'.

And wild eyed Krugman is an eminent subject matter expert?

brian, dimmy, please which of Krugman's economic papers/positions do you take issue with? And why? Full support and citations please. Or as usual do you only have names to hurl? - though watching you here is like watching someone try to stab someone to death with a sprig of parsley.

I just saw Hillary's response. It was, of course, not honest and it was an awkward attempt to straddle the issue, but it was not as bad as people had said it was.

It is tiresome how she spins virtually every question to an attack on the Bush administration in an effort to avoid a straightforward answer, but this was just an awkward attempt to combine the straddle and the spin.

Read Taylor Marsh's take on the debate. Women are not responding well to last nights debate where a bunch of men ganged up on a woman to bring her down. Expect Obama's and Edward's poll numbers to tank as women drop their support in droves.

brian: "It is tiresome how she spins virtually every question ..."

You're such a know-it-all -- why don't YOU run for public office, instead of constantly putting down the people who do?

" the moderators need to figure out a way to illuminate the differences between the candidates, not just play gotcha against one of them."

That wasn't gotcha.

It was letting Democratics all over the country in on some of the secrets of the race.

For example:

- It's was inoforming Democratic voters that all of the canididates save Hillary and Richardson think that Senator Clinton is a reckless warmonger on Iran,

- It's was inoforming Democratic voters that Senator Clinton has officially changed her party registration to that of a Liebercrat.

- It's was inoforming Democratic voters the Mark Penn-style triangulation and double talk is merely the way the the Clintons roll.

Use a chess timer. Set each side for 45 minutes and establish a general topic, such as foreign relations. Flip a coin for first go. One person talks until done and then hits the timer. You get 45 minutes total to talk, and if you use it all at once, the other person gets to finish unanswered.

I thought HRC answered Russert's question just fine.

After that, the men did pile on.

I'm a woman.

I like HRC, by the way. When you watch a few videos of her, especially in relaxed settings, it's pretty obvious she's a nice person with a good sense of humor. It becomes hard to understand why she is so often demonized by the right, by men, by the media, and by her opponents, if not because of misogyny. Too bad.

HRC can't vote for the Kyle-Lieberman bill -- a green light to attack Iran -- and have Obama and Edwards disagree with her vote, and say that two men are ganging up on a woman.

She can't be asked whether she favors a proposal by her OWN governor to give drivers licenses to illegals -- a proposal she supported in the press -- and not answer the question in the debate, and blame Tim Russert for asking the question.

She can't run for leader of the free world in an age of terror and claim that men are beating up on her. This defense -- a victim of men -- is going to backfire -- big time. It shows she's NOT suited for the presidency.

First she was for the Spitzer plan, in the debate she wasn't sure, today she's for it. This was her "I was for it before I was against it" moment.

BIG TROUBLE!!!

HRC did blow the Spitzer/license question. She should just take a stand and THEN blame Bush for no immigration policy.

And Utah already does a version of what Spitzer is promoting, so it's not exactly radical. Unless things have changed in Utah.

But I agree that the moderators are way to consumed with their importance. Russert is dreadful and he and his giant ego need to be chucked out of this process.

The other candidates should insist that the debate include their ideas, not just their ideas about disagreeing with HRC.

"It is tiresome how she spins virtually every question to an attack on the Bush administration in an effort to avoid a straightforward answer"

LOL.... Dear heart, just where have you been? In what way does this differ from the behavior of every single debater from both parties over the past 40 years or so?

"This is amazing. Russert, former asssistant to Tip O'Neil, is somehow biased against democrats?"

Yup. Have you even been paying attention for the past dozen years or so? His past history is not the issue; his current behavior is.

"And wild eyed Krugman is an eminent subject matter expert?"

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, Krugman is a widely respected economist. Do try to keep up, won't you?

"When you watch a few videos of her, especially in relaxed settings, it's pretty obvious she's a nice person with a good sense of humor." - Mina

No one is saying that Hillary isn't a 'nice person' or doesn't have a 'good sense of humor.'
It's her triangulation and political stand on issues, particularly in foreign policy, that makes me not want her as our next president (and I'm a woman). I was struck during the debate that she was the only candidate who forcefully declared that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. That simply has not been proven to my satisfaction at least, and even if proven, does not justify a US attack. Iran would be in the same position as any other country with nukes. If it uses them it will be annihilated. (This is not to say that I want every country in the world to have nuclear weapons. But as long as the major powers have them, it's easy to see why smaller countries want them for 'defensive' purposes).
Back to Hillary. Hillary's membership in the small Fellowship of religious fundamentalists in the Senate is unsettling to me, as is her membership in the College Republicans during her late teens and twenties. Perhaps the most important thing for me personally were her votes in favor of the Iraq Resolution and more recently the Kyle-Lieberman Iran Resolution. Those two votes set her apart from all the other Dem candidates and I simply do not buy her arguments concerning those votes. Edwards was right to call her on them. These two votes are prime examples of her triangulation in preparation for the general election (or else, worse, her actual foreign policy stance in support of Bush's misadventures).

Actually I don't have any problem with Hillary's driver's license answer. In the debate she consistently made it clear that she thought it was a good idea and explained why. The problem, of course, was caused by her realization that perhaps she had answered the question too straightforwardly. It was the old triangulation problem that did her in.

As the debate was held at Drexel, the alma mater of rdw, I thought Russert was simply channeling rdw.

"... the democratic bloggers and HRC campaign must stop whining about Russert, his questions and accept that Hillary hedged and got caught. There's a larger issue...she won't be allowed to dodge the tough policy questions anymore."

Posted by: JerseyMissouri on October 31, 2007

It wasn't mean questions. They were normal.

It wasn't mean opponents. They did their job.

It was Hillary. She flip-flops, equivocates and refuses to stand for anything.

nepeta,

I actually think whether she is a nice person is relevant. Liking someone is part of believing them. It's a crucial component of Obama's campaign, of Edwards's campaign, of Guiliani's campaign, of Romney's...of every campaign.

As for Iran, I think she made the smart choice in voting to label parts of the Revolutionary Guard "terrorists". It's a bureaucratic designation that allows our government to move forward with financial sanctions. As we all know, such measures prevented Iraq from developing WMD and is likely to have the same effect on Iran. It's unfortunate that it could be construed as an authorization to go to war by W. But presidents haven't needed congressional approval for combat operations for a long time now, so I don't see why that vote should be held up more than any other as some form of appeasement to Republican hawks. That it is, I suppose, is good for the general election, but what do you have against a candidate that is preparing for tougher battles ahead?

"First step: get rid of Tim Russert."

Hear, hear. I hardly ever watch Press the Meat anymore because of his clear bias against Democrats and for Republican'ts.

Jim Lehrer is the only good moderator, tho Gwen Ifill could get better with practice.

I suggest a forum like her show "Washington Week." She moderates, but the participating journalists ask each other questions. No audience and therefore no playing to it.

With so many candidates, they should split it into three sessions, with one of the major candidates and ALL of the "minor" candidates at each session. That would overcome the media's bias in favor of those they have anointed as "major" given their fundraising and national poll standings (read "name recognition" read postive feedback loop). Anyone taking advantage by engaging in personal attacks instead of reasonable questions on policy would not be invited back.

Bob Schieffer would also be good to moderate this kind of forum.

Hillary's campaign is grounded in gender and payback. Its leading strategy is Bush fatigue, not policy change. When elected, her triangulation tactic results in--should she win--the freedom to try to initiate what she wants and ignore everything she doesn't want. It disempowers interest groups and rewards relationships. Why take positions? That's what gets politicians in trouble. Sen. Clinton doesn't say she has answers. So she will sit down with the people who are always involved in these things and figure out how to rearrange or postpone them in order to best position herself for re-election. If she wanted to implement some changes, she'd let us know what's important to her during the primaries to prevail over other Dems, who largely share the same platform. But she doesn't, so she won't. You can be certain she's not going to be floating any Big Ideas during the general election when the gender and Bush fatigue memes will really kick in.

Mina,

Oh, it's certainly true that we often tend to 'like' the candidate we choose to support in a personal way more than we do the other candidates. Unfortunately, that's what makes many excellent candidates in a policy sense lose to the more handsome/attractive, taller or more personable candidate (remember Gore the boring policy wonk). I was simply warning that political judgments should not be made predominantly on who one likes the best in a personal sense (See Scientific American, June-July, 2007 for interesting research on gut feelings, vibes, etc.) But it sounds like you share Hillary's world-view and thus you should vote for her.

Just one comment on your approval of the sanctions placed on Iraq. They were quite a bit more far-reaching than just financial and resulted in the deaths of around 500,000 Iraqi children. Chlorine was one of the forbidden dual-use items. Unchlorinated water led to dysentary, extremely dangerous and often fatal for children. Sanctions usually hurt innocent civilians much more than the governments they're intended to weaken.

"Jim Lehrer is the only good moderator..."

Cal Gal, Jim Lehrer...aaarrrgh!!! I haven't watched PBS news since 2002 for exactly the reason you rarely watch Meet the Press!

" but what do you have against a candidate that is preparing for tougher battles ahead?" - Mina

Sorry, I keep finding things in your comment to respond to. You don't really mean to suggest that Hillary should have put her personal ambition to be Prez ahead of an effort to stop Bush's immoral and illegal rush to war, do you?
I'm a NYer who gave money to Hillary in her Senate race but my outrage at her Iraq Res. vote will remain with me for a lifetime.

Sanctions usually hurt innocent civilians much more than the governments they're intended to weaken.

That's what I thought at the time, too, and was against them. But seeing the number of people that have been killed, maimed, displaced and traumatized because we ignored the fact that sanctions disabled the Iraqi WMD program... I would choose sanctions over war.

***

[Slurring an entire gender is three-star wingnuttery.]

mhr, what happened to you in life to make you such a dismal, bitter shit?

Mina - Unfortunately, it isn't an either/or situation. Just like in Iraq it could be BOTH.

My test message no. 1 http://rolingasss.com

2 test message

8nXTxZ comment2 ,

I want to say - thank you for this!

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

Incredible site!

Great. Now i can say thank you!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

+1

Very goood!!!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.