Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHL9KO0.html


MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidates clashed on Sunday over whether the Bush administration had made the country safer from terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards called President Bush's global war on terrorism a "political slogan, a bumper sticker, that's all it is" in the second televised debate pitting the eight Democratic contenders.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is the front-runner in national polls, said she did not agree with Edwards characterization of the war on terrorism.

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

 
(AP) Democratic Presidential hopefuls from left former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska; Sen. Christopher...
Full Image
 
 
Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said that the administration's war in Iraq had detracted from efforts to root out terrorists.

"We live in a more dangerous world partly as a consequence of this president's actions," Obama said.

The candidates sought to highlight their own differences on the war in Iraq.

Obama told Edwards, who voted in October 2002 to authorize the war in Iraq but now says that the vote was a mistake: "John, you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue."

Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote but had voiced opposition to the war resolution at the time.

Edwards conceded, "He was right, I was wrong" on opposing the war from the beginning. And Edwards sought to highlight his change of heart on his vote with Clinton's continuing refusal to disavow her vote for the war resolution.

Said Clinton: "That was a sincere vote."

She again declined to say her vote was wrong.

Both Edwards and Clinton agreed that they voted for the war resolution in 2002 without reading an intelligence report on Iraq that was available to them. Both said they sought other information and believed they were thoroughly briefed.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich said the war on Iraq should not just be blamed on Bush, but on the Congress that authorized it.

U.S. troops "never should have been sent there in the first place," he said. Rather than debate timetables and benchmarks, the Democratic-controlled Congress should "just say no money, the war's over," he said.

Kucinich called on other debate partners who were members of Congress to remember that voters had given Democrats control of both House and Senate last November largely in response to opposition to the war.

To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.

But Obama protested the question itself, calling it "the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us." He said such questions "do a disservice to the American people."

The candidates squared off as a new national poll found Clinton maintaining a significant lead over her rivals. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found the former first lady leading the field with 42 percent support among adults, compared with 27 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards.

The debate took place in the first primary state.

The Iraq war was the main focus, as it was during Democrats' first debate, in late April in Orangeburg, S.C. Polls show the war has become deeply unpopular among voters and especially among Democratic activists, who vote heavily in primaries.



 



 
 
 

Richardson and Biden impressed me.  Hillary seemed to take some hits in the beginning but I thought she rebounded great.  Obama was solid.  That one guy, from Alaska...wow, hes like a cranky grandpa.  someone give him a valium.  dude needs to CHILLLL out. haha

looking forward to tuesdays repub debate

i agree with you on biden. but i thought hillary was great from the beginning. she really impresses me. and her experience trumps all. i think richardson is killing himself in these debates. and the dude from alaska is great - calls it like it is. so refreshing.

i don't think hill-dog herself was bad, but she definitely seemed to get "owned" as the internet kids say with a few of her opponents responses to her statements...just early on, like the first 15 mins or so.  After that I thought she was great.

Alaska dude would start to make good points but then he'd just start babbling/rambling and lose me completely.  i like guys with passion but he just seemed over the top pissed/angry. 

why do you think that about richardson?

hillary is very well-spoken, best of the bunch. and she incorporates her experiences into her answers. she almost sounds honest up there which is really an accomplishment.

edwards "bumper sticker" comment is ridiculous. and hillary did a perfect job of making that known, and giving a great answer in the process.

richardson was given a tough question early on (moral issue of there being a genocide in iraq if we leave). he talked alot but didn't answer the question. i thought he looked really bad. the rest of the night was similar...just very little substance. i like the guy, but was thinking he probably has little chance of someone even picking him for VP.

I missed it!  Hopefully CNN will re-air it...  ???

i'm not 100%, but i think you can watch it on cnn.com.

Thanks.  It's on again in 30 minutes, so I'll catch it then.  Believe it or not, I didn't even know there was a debate tonight.  Guess I haven't been watching the news as much lately, though MSNBC (my news of choice) certainly aren't pushing the debates as much, now that those on their own networks are out of the way. 

I've gotten to the point that only a political "rabbit out of a hat" will get me to vote Republican, in 2008, so I do really want to see the Dems debate as often as possible. 

Alright...debate watched.  A few thoughts, and an emoticon for each candidate that best represents their performance.

First, John Edwards "won" this one.  He took it to Obama and Clinton, did a good job of contrasting himself with other candidates, and was generally very composed and effective.  :headbanger:

Obama was good (better than last time).  Much more composed and no major screw ups.  :smoking:

Hil-Dog (woof woof!) was ok, but not great.  She "won" the part on health care, when others were giving intricate details and she said something like "lower costs, improve quality...".  Then again, I find her to be completely insincere.  "I'm a Senator from New York!"  My ass.  That and her stubborn insistence that she wasn't "wrong" to vote for the war just really get to me.  By '08, we'll have had eight years of a President who can't or won't admit when he's wrong, and she seems to be the same.    ::)

Biden really impressed, again, and he's quickly setting himself apart from the rest of the "second tier" candidates as the one that could try to crack the top tier.  He's honest, forceful, confident, and very knowledgeable.   : ok:

Richardson, sadly, blew donkey dick.  He was horrible.  He can't begin a sentence with anything other than "When I did this...", or "What we did in New Mexico, where I'm governor...".  It gets old.  Too bad, because he's probably the most qualified. :puke:

I still appreciate Kucinich's principles, though he has no chance.  But it's nice to see him keep them honest.   :peace:

Gravel is a fucking loon.   :nervous:

Dodd gets my vote for "Best Attempt to Avoid Answering a Question," for his answer to the "how will you lower gas prices" question.  He had a minute, and spent about 58 seconds of it talking about why the issue was important.    :drool:

I would rank their performances thusly:

Edwards
Biden
Obama
Kucinich
Hil-Dog
Dodd
Richardson
Gravel

Here are some interesting numbers:

From NBC's Mark Murray
Here are the final times each campaign received, per the Dodd campaign: Obama spoke the longest (16:00 minutes); Gravel the shortest (5:37).

Biden: 7:58      10 questions
Clinton: 14:26   15 questions
Dodd: 8:28         9 questions
Edwards: 11:42     13 questions
Gravel: 5:37     10 questions
Kucinich: 9:02    9 questions
Obama: 16:00    16 questions
Richardson: 10:48    11 questions

Of course, most of us are MOST interested in what the big three have to say, in our hopes of distinguishing between their positions.  But, I can see the point the Dodd camp is trying to make.  After all, if you don't start out as a front runner, this makes it much harder to become one.  That said, if you're not a frontrunner, it's because of one of two reasons.  You're an unknown quantity and/or you haven't got a prayer of being elected.  The three candidates who received the least questions all fall into the latter (and, to some extent, the former).  Bill Clinton was an unknown quantity, and he did just fine. 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/04/debate.analysis/index.html

? Delaware Sen. Biden was "on fire" Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says
? Performance wasn't strong enough for Biden to gain on front-runners, analyst says
? Several observers say as front-runner, Clinton played it safe
? One analyst says some of Richardson's answers were confusing

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Although there was no consensus on the winner of Sunday night's Democratic presidential debate, CNN analysts were largely impressed with Sen. Joe Biden and disappointed with Gov. Bill Richardson.

Democratic and Republican strategists analyzed the the New Hampshire debate along with CNN's own political team.

Biden was "on fire," Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Donna Brazile said. Brazile said Biden's answers set him apart from the other seven.

CNN analyst J.C. Watts, a former Republican congressman, also thought the Delaware senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, performed best.

"I don't think there was anyone who broke out, with the possible exception of Joe Biden," Watts said.

Explaining his vote for a bill funding the war in Iraq that didn't contain a timetable for withdrawal, Biden stressed that Democrats did not have the necessary 67 votes to override a presidential veto of a bill with timetables.

"Look, the Republicans and this president have not told us the truth about this war from the beginning. The last thing we Democrats should do is not be telling the truth," he said. "As long as there is a single troop in Iraq that I know if I take action by funding them, I increase the prospect they will live or not be injured. I cannot and will not vote no to fund them."

Biden was especially forceful in his answers on troop funding and on the conflict in Sudan's Darfur province. He was the only candidate in Sunday's debate who said he supported military intervention in Darfur. He advocated imposing a no-fly zone over the region and sending in 2,500 NATO peacekeepers to stop the killings.

"I went there. I sat in the borders. I went in those camps. They're going to have thousands and thousands and thousands of people die. We've got to stop talking and act," Biden said of the conflict.

The Bush administration has declared the conflict "genocide."

But not all observers thought Biden gained enough ground to challenge front-runners Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

"You can see a glimpse what made him such a star 20 years ago when he was the fresh new face in the Democratic Party, before he got in trouble," said Mike Murphy, a former adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain.

Biden was running for the 1988 presidential nomination when he dropped out amid allegations he plagiarized part of his stump speech from a British politician. Despite his years of experience since then, Murphy said, Biden is still not a first-tier candidate for the 2008 election.

Several observers characterized Clinton's performance as effective, yet safe.

"She came clearly determined not to let her position on Iraq and the objection of the others get in her way," said Arianna Huffington, the editor of the Huffington Post, a liberal-leaning political blog.

"I thought it was her best performance, and if Obama and Edwards really want to take her on Iraq, they have to be much more aggressive and much more clear."

Watts said Clinton did nothing to hurt her front-runner status, but others disagreed.

"Her problem is all her non-verbal communication. She has got to learn to control that to be more effective on television," Murphy said of the former first lady.

Debate watchers largely dismissed Richardson's performance as weak.

"We kept counting how many times Gov. Richardson would remind us he was a governor, and actually walk us through his resume," Huffington said. "He had to actually be able to stand up for what he was doing right there on the stage rather than constantly presenting us with his resume."

CNN analyst Bill Schneider noted that some of Richardson's answers, particularly on immigration, were confusing.

Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer whether the new immigration bill would give amnesty to illegal immigrants, the self-described "border governor" gave a long answer that apparently didn't answer the question to the Blitzer's satisfaction.

Blitzer asked again.

"It isn't an amnesty," Richardson said of the bill, which would give legal status to about 12 million people who entered the United States illegally.

"What this bill does is it sets standards, the standards that I mentioned -- learning English, passing background checks. There is a touch-back provision."

After the debate, Richardson himself expressed some doubt about his performance, and gave it a mixed review.

"I did well. I was a little concerned I didn't get the main difference between me and the other candidates. That is, I take all the troops out (of Iraq) by the end of this calendar year, leaving no residual forces," he said.

Richardson, who was U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration, said he believes he has the most experience on issues of immigration, health care, foreign policy, and the conflict in Darfur.

Sunday's face-off at St. Anselm College was the first time the Democratic contenders have shared a stage in the Granite State, home of the nation's first presidential primary. The debate was staged by CNN, WMUR and the New Hampshire Union Leader.

New Hampshire voters go to the polls on January 22, 2008

Obama looked strong.

Of those in the field who voted to authorize the war, I find that their explanations of that vote are really wearing on me. 

"We were lied to, and deceived..."

"This is Bush's war..."

"Had the President done what we expected..."

And while I know these things are all at least partially true, I really just don't care.   At worst, (and I don't believe this) these people are just as bad as Bush, and think the war is a good thing.    At best, they're stupid.  In a best case scenario, Democrats in Congress were, and let's be honest here, duped by a man that most of us think couldn't pass a fourth grade spelling test.  That does NOT say anything great about their character.  After all, if they were duped by Bush, how can we know that they won't be duped again, by a new closet neo-con Secretary of Defense, or bad intelligence?  I'm not saying these are bad people.  They did clearly make a political choice to vote for a war that was generally approved of and to support a President who was, at that time, popular.  That was a bad, bad choice, and even if they did it out of blind ignorance, it's not a quality I think would benefit our next Commander in Chief.  God knows, if they drive through New York and see a man holding a "The End is Near" sign, I don't want them launching the missiles against the Ruskies, and claiming they were duped to a post-apocalyptic audience.   

Those who voted, voted to give authority to go to war as a final measure.

Bush had many options before going to war, but discarded all of them immediately. He kicked the inspectors out, not the dems, and went into Iraq with guns blazing.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that the Dems are somehow the sole responsible party.  And I mostly blame the Bush administration for going in too quickly and for making it a major catastrophe.  But I only see three possibilities in terms of explaining these candidates votes to authorize the war.

1.) They wanted the war, just like Bush, and are backing away now that it has gone awry.  This strikes me as being the basic Republican stance, in a lot of cases.

2.) Bush lied, and they fell for it.  This reflects bad judgement. 

3.) It was a purely political decision, to support a then popular President.  This, in my view, is the worst option.  Voting for a war that has killed thousands, for political points?  I hope, very sincerely, that this was not what anyone did.

And none of these really paint a favorable picture of Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd. 

Essentially what I'm saying, though, is that their excuses for their war votes aren't good ones.  They may be the ONLY possible excuses, but they aren't good.  They reflect bad judgement, at best, and war for political points, at worst.     

They voted to authorize war as a last alternative, not to "got to war". Bush gave them his word he would exhaust all alternatives before hand. After the vote he kicked the inspectors out and broke that promise.

Were the Dems naive to trust the President of the United States? I dunno. You think the POTUS would be trustworthy and a man of integrity. Guess not.

obama said the following:

"I opposed this war from the start...not years late."

directed at edwards and hillary. so is obama LYING by saying that they did NOT oppose the war from the start?

Fair enough, but as Obama (I think) said last night, there was enough that concerned him about the case for war that he didn't support it.  You'd think that, if that's the case, Congress (or the Democrats at least) would do more to ensure that Congress, including the minority party, would be involved with the decision making process sometime after the initial authorization and before the beginning of combat.  By authorizing the use of force BEFORE it was deemed completely necessary, Congress is culpable. 

Also, since you speak of trust, I think it's important to point out that the American people are supposed to be able to trust both the President and Congress.  I agree that the Bush administration was deceitful in the run up to this war, but when these two branches are in general agreement about something as significant as this, the American people are going to assume (as we largely did) that it's kosher.  Had their been any real resistance from the Democrats, enough even to delay the war for the course of a true national debate about its merits, the public support would have decreased.  Had they held off on authorizing force, until after inspections had been carried forth, then public support would have decreased when the inspectors found nothing.  Had Congress done anything OTHER than roll over like a well trained dog, the odds are pretty good that we wouldn't have nearly 3,500 dead soldiers, and God knows how many wounded (I've seen estimates of 25,000, though I don't know if those include the dead). 

I'm just not sure we should give those who voted to authorize this war a pass, simply because they've changed their tune.  Those who admit they were wrong (Edwards), which implies that they believe they DO bear some of the blame, I can live with.  Those who play the "Bush lied to me" game, and won't admit their mistakes (Clinton), bother me greatly.

He was vocal about opposing the war from the start, while they were not. Silence does not equal condoning an event, it simply means cowardice. His point was that he had the courage to speak up when others in his party did not (why I like him) that does not mean they pushed for the war. This is Bush's war pal.

the sad truth is that even the scumbag Dems base their WAR VOTES on popular polls, instead of intelligence not available to the public.

you can keep saying they didn't vote for the war, or that they didn't support the war, but it simply is not true. even honest bill clinton admitted he supported the invasion.

L. Chafee explains it well...

"The Senate had the opportunity to support a more deliberate, multilateral approach, one that still would have empowered the United States to respond to any imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We must not sidestep the fact that a sensible alternative did exist, but it was rejected. Candidates ? Democrat and Republican ? should be called to account for their vote on the Levin amendment."

Imagine you guys if the Dems voted against giving the President authorization to use force as a final measure after 9-11.  You would have been calling them every name in the book, what a bunch of cowards, traitors they were and so on. The same names you and your ilk called me as I spoke out against the invasion.

Let me ask you this: Did the Dems kick the inspectors out of Iraq or did Bush? Bush did (after lying about it.) So who went to war? Who granted power to use force as a last resort, and who then abused it?

Facts are facts are facts. Just as goose stepping Bush stooges are goose stepping Bush stooges.

You can't admit you are wrong, because it hurts too much to know your guy fucked you right in your ass. Chumped you out. Pandering to you, and then used you like a shake and bake bag. He dropped the ball on Osama-lost site, ran the deficit into the ground, created a terror state in Iraq, and fucked you at the gas pump. That is why you won't give it up.

Your guy took your vote, and chumped you out-totally used you. Every time I pump gas I smile thinking about guys like you, bitching about the price of gas.

I'm assuming most (or all) of this is NOT directed at me, though I'm not certain.  ??? 

I agree that Republicans should be the MOST pissed at Bush...he's like the anti-Republican, in so many ways.  Big government, high deficits, interventionist... 

None of it.

I could send you an ecard if you'd like....



He's about as much of a republican as I am.

 :rofl:  I think I'll pull through.

Ive seen you describe the Republican Party this way several times, but the majority of the party supports Bush in rhetoric and legislation.  He represents the party very well.

I think a lot of it is comparison shopping.? I don't think Bush has too many supporters anymore, even amongst Republicans.? I agree, however, that he is typical of many Republicans, but he is quite far from a conservative.  I think people often confuse the two.

agreed, your text book definition of a republican, bush is not.  but there aren't many that fit that bill these days.  as Booker pointed out a lot of the 08' candidates are echoing the same shit bush has been saying...

I really liked Biden a lot.

Didnt know much about the guy goin in but he really impressed me.

I think the point I've wanted to make, over many posts on many topics, is that the Republican party seems to have shifted away from those core conservative values that are centered around the idea of small government.  The only candidate who's a small government conservative is Ron Paul, and it amazes me that there isn't a legitimate contender for the Republican nomination who represents that once prominent wing of the party. 

But that breed of conservatism seems to be on life support, as the Republicans became rapidly pro-huge military, as a backlash against Clinton's downsizing of it, and that has turned into them being rabidly pro-security, at the cost of anything else.  And, since their belief in small government and low taxes was the Republican Party's way of promoting freedom and individualism, as those things dissipate, and they become both socially conservative AND big government, then the party ceases (or ceased...) to be conservative and begins to be, simply, authoritarian.     


I agree.  He came across as a straight shooter...maybe he'll become the Dems version of McCain 2000?

same here, i think amongst the 2nd tier candidates he did his best to stand out.

the best was when Obama put edwards in his place on his iraq vote. 

Amazingly, I somehow missed that.  Must've had to pee.  Fortunately, it's been all over the news as Obama's biggest moment. 

I was also amused, watching tonight's MSNBC coverage regarding last night's debate.  Three shows, with three completely different takes:

Tucker: Clinton seems disingenuous in not saying her Iraq vote was wrong.
Hardball: Obama was smart to not attack Hillary.
Countdown: Hillary won the debate.  Obama came across as weak, for not attacking Hillary.

I do know that I enjoyed watching Hillary go from shit-eatin' grin  ;D to fake pseudo-smile  :D to puzzled and angry  >:( as she realized that Edwards was in the middle of slamming her leadership qualities.

Edwards is the last person to be talking about leadership.  he served what, one term in office, has done very little politically the last 4 years!?!?!?  And people give Obama shit about being "inexperienced"??

he just comes across to me as very whiny.  Obama's comment exposed him for the joke he is.  i'd much rather see Biden or Richardson as the 3rd guy on the 1st tier....

I've been thinking the same about Edwards.  After all, if this stuff was that important, then why leave the Senate after one term?  That seat is now in Republican hands, and surely Edwards realizes how one more vote against possible Republican filibusters would be important?  I don't know...it bothers me about him.  EDIT: I'm ESPECIALLY concerned that he left the Senate to work for a hedge fund, and I'm not buying his BS "it was research" line.  That's hardly leadership.  :no:   

I really liked Richardson, and think he's the most qualified, except perhaps Biden, but he's done so poorly in the debates that I think his chances will fade quickly, and he'll slip into that "no chance in Hell" tier.  I still wouldn't be surprised if he's a running mate or the next Secretary of State, though.

I actually like pretty boy Edwards for some reason.......

His hair cut represents the American dream.  :hihi:

So I assume you agree with those that use the "Obama isnt experienced enough" argument?  After all, youre referencing Edwards' one term to question his leadership ability.  To my knowledge, Edwards hasnt made any criticisms about Obamas experience.

As for doing "very little politically" for the last four years, perhaps you can expound.  Id like to know how youll dismiss his work regarding poverty as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC, multifarious speeches across the country, work with Jack Kemp for the Council on Foreign Relations, and College for Everyone program.  No, he didnt make much of an impact on legislation; as you might know, hes no longer able to vote in the Senate.  However, he has used his position to reach out to supporters on many issues (volunteering, Supreme Court nominees, Iraq, etc.). 


That makes sense since you seem to share their penchants for reinforcing Republican narratives. 

You disagree with Edwards (presumably since you havent referenced anything other than his criticism of Obama), but why do you believe that hes a joke?

Obviously, you dislike the fact that Edwards has criticized your preferred candidates.  Thats perfectly fine, but your attempts to discredit him are bogus. 

To run for president?  Did you expect him to campaign for both the presidency and his Senate seat?

Im not a big John Edwards fan. I for one did kind of like his bumper sticker line. I admit that made me laugh out loud. Pretty genius! : ok:


I like:
1.Hillary
2. Biden


Obama and Edwards are ok.


Republicans are basically finished for the next 8 years. Maybe in 2016 they can get another shot at the white house but Bush has really destroyed all future republicans chances for awhile.

I use to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on some things but there really is no defending him anymore.

It's been known to happen...often.  To my knowledge, none of the contenders for 2008 have resigned from Congress. 

Joe Biden's Senate seat is up for election, as are the seats of Dennis Kucinich, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, in the House of Representatives.

Should he run, as has been discussed, Chuck Hagel's seat in the Senate will be up for election. 

I'm also fairly certain that John Kerry is still in the Senate, despite having run for President.

As around 90% of incumbent Senators are reelected, Edwards could have cruised to a victory, and resigned had he been elected to either office in the executive.  As he wasn't elected to the Presidency or Vice Presidency, there'd be one more Democrat held seat in the Senate, which would have given him the position from which to affect change.  I think it's a fair criticism of Edwards that, at a crucial moment, he was no longer in public office.
 

After seeing Al Gore on Larry  King Live I have no idea why he won't run for President again. I think he would win by a landslide.

I was so moved and inspired by him that I'd actually even go door to door and campaign for him.

Gore comes off as an honest, intelligent, humble and decent man.

 ???

Isnt that a bit specious since you acknowledged that many of the contenders seats arent up for election?

You then named the ones whose are:

Joe Biden: One of the safest Senate seats in the country.  With that said, theres still rumors about him stepping down soon, allowing his son to run to succeed him.

Duncan Hunter: He is retiring at the end of his term, allowing his son to run to succeed him.

Dennis Kucinich: Congressional seats are quite different from Senate ones.  Aside from that fact, this is another safe seat.

Ron Paul: Another safe seat.  Also, hell likely be out of the race before winter of 2007. 

Its also of note that the last three candidates arent the most serious contenders. 


Hes not running now, and hes unlikely to, so thats not a very good good example. 


Again, this is specious.  Im fairly certain he wasnt up for reelection in 2004. 


This isnt true.   First, running for two offices betrays a lack of confidence in a candidates chances of winning one, in addition to selfishness.  Lieberman was wrong to do it in 2000, but he at least had the luxury of holding a safe seat.  Do you really think Edwards would have "cruised to a victory" without running an active campaign (because running a serious presidential campaign and serious Senate campaign simultaneously is impossible and thus an absurd expectation)?  North Carolina tends to vote Republicans to federal office, and Richard Burr had already announced he was running and had White House support, as well as a good amount of money.  He wasnt cruising to a victory under any circumstances.  His seat was very much competitive.  I strongly doubt the DNC and DSCC would have supported such a decision. 

On fire? She would think that. :rofl:

His comment about a fence stopping 22 kilos of cocaine but it wouldn't stop illegals from climbing or going around the fence proved how dumb Biden is. Yeah right, I'm sure none of those criminals would ever think of carrying cocaine on their back while crossing the border.  ::)

Not really.  I said it happens "often."  And then gave five examples of it happening currently.  Five out of 18 is often enough to indicate that this isn't so far outside the realm of possibility that John Edwards couldn't have done it in 2004. 

Of course, some of the candidates aren't current members of Congress, so it's actually five out of ten.  So, yeah, that's "often."  Half of the candidates who are members of Congress are up for Congressional reelection.   


I can't imagine why in the world I'm not allowed to speculate about Hagel, yet you're allowed to speculate about who'll be retiring and who'll be out of the election. 

Also, the entire point of this is that most are safe seats!


No, he wasn't.  My point was simply that, whether they're up for election or not, many candidates still retain the option of returning to their old jobs in Congress.  Some resign after their run, but they're usually not young men like Edwards. 
Bob Dole springs to mind.


Hmm...no, it's 100% true.  Here ya go.  The last 25 years are particularly telling.

(http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect_img.asp?chamb=S)

He still had incumbent advantage, and I'd put my money on him winning, had he run.  But he didn't and now he's neither President of the United States, nor Senator from North Carolina.  You say his seat wasn't safe?  Fair enough.  But by not running, he practically gave the seat to Burr and the Republicans.  Yet, he has the gumption to criticize others in the Senate for their leadership.

I don't think it disqualifies him from running or being nominated, but Obama was in the right when he delivered that verbal bitch-slap.   

I, too, was confused by his cocaine comments.  I'm pretty sure I paused the debate, to consider how a fence would stop a 22 kg bag of coke, but not a 70 kg person.   

Who said you cant speculate?  The bottom line is that hes not running at the moment, and hes unlikely to.  I didnt say definitively that he wasnt.  But since hes not, hes not a very good example.


Then its an irrelevant comparison.  If Edwards wasnt up for reelection, this would be a different discussion, but he was and I explained why a run for both offices wouldnt be feasible.


I was referring to Edwards "cruising to victory" without running an active Senate campaign.


Yes, he had an incumbent advantage in a competitive race, just as the senator whom he defeated in 1998 had.  George Allen, Conrad Burns, Jim Talent, Mike DeWine, Lincoln Chaffee, and Rick Santorum had that advantage as well.  That advantage will only go so far, especially in absence of a serious campaign.  Ill say it again: you cant run both a serious Senate race and a serious presidential/VP race at the same time.


No.  He gave another Democrat the opportunity to win the seat and that person lost.  He was running a credible campaign for president (and then vice president) so he could have greater influence than he had as a senator; explain how he can actively run a competitive campaign in North Carolina at the same time. 

I agree that he's not as good an example as the others, but since his name has been floated about, I thought I'd include him.  Whether he runs or not doesn't affect my larger point, which is that this does happen often.


It is an irrelevant comparison, but it wasn't a comparison, so much as a parallel thought.  As you said, "running for two offices betrays a lack of confidence in a candidates chances of winning one, in addition to selfishness."  Surely if that applies to running for two offices simultaneously, knowing that you can only hold one, then it should apply to being in office and running for another.  After all, Kerry (or any other candidate) can't possibly do his full duty as a Senator while running for President.  But we don't expect that they will resign from one just to RUN for the other.   


Wasn't certain, so I went after both.  :hihi:


...meaning that in what was clearly a horrible year for Republican incumbents, there were 27 races in which an incumbent was not defeated.  I THINK four of those races had no incumbent running, but that's still about 80% of incumbents being reelected.  Of course, 2006 doesn't matter a lick, here.  When he would have run for reelection in 2004, 25 out of 26 running incumbents were reelected, including eleven of twelve Democrats. 


An incumbent in the national spotlight had a better chance than anyone else the Democrats could have run.  And Bowles wasn't as strong a candidate as everyone expected him to be.

But, at the end of the day, this is really all a matter of opinion.  You and I can throw facts, figures, and logic at each other until the cows come home, and it won't make a bit of difference.  Again, though, I'm not saying it disqualifies him from being a strong candidate.  I just think it's a fair criticism, primarily because he's criticizing others' leadership.     

Whoooaaaaa.  To quote Sadamm Hussein "reellaaaaxxxxx guuuuyyyy".

wasn't trying to discredit anyone.  It's just my opinion of him, nothing more.  And no, you assume wrong, I DO think Obama is experienced enough.  Edwards was talking about leadership, my point was I don't know how he can criticize others when he doesn't really have much experience leading or legislating (hence my reference to very little politically - your examples are fine, but they don't do much for me - actual legislating/governing is more important to me when deciding who i want to elect for president - to each their own right?)  :peace:

 :rofl: 

Yeah, after all, this is really just a bunch of people who won't be voting Republican nit-picking about which Democrat to vote for.

Did anyone catch tonights Republican debate?

I saw about 45 minutes of it, which was enough to see that, unlike earlier debates, they now appear to believe Bush is acceptable cannon fodder, and slamming him might help their political goals.

The crowd seemed more raucous than the Dems' crowd, a few night ago.  Perhaps they were trying to convince us that people still like Republicans?

I still appreciate Ron Paul for taking such principled stances, even when I disagree with him, and on the Daily Show, Monday night and again in the debate, he was more than candid about both why using force to spread democracy is a bad policy, and also how the two party system (of which he is a part, albeit on the fringes) conspires to prevent any legitimate third party competition.   

I do like seeing that the less conservative Republicans (Romney and Guiliani) talked seriously about energy independence, though Guiliani's comment that the military needs to be restructured (I agree with that part) and that they need to be trained in "nation building" (I heartily disagree with that part!  :nervous:). 

McCain did pretty well, though he kept saying "my friends" and it seemed contrived, after a while.

I appreciated Rep. Tancredo's assertion that Bush wouldn't be someone he'd "use" during his term.   

I'm not sure why they keep asking all these stupid religion questions of the candidates.  As it relates to policy (prayer in school, Ten Commandments in a courtroom, etc.)?  That's fine.  But personal beliefs about God don't strike me as important matters in a debate. 

Yeah, we know what they say about loyalty and politics...



It's men like Paul that should sit in office. Sadly they're too conscious for their own good. Voters don't like it when their neurons are required to do some work.


They might need to start work in their own backyard first, yeah :hihi:


The religious conservatives are a large group, they 'won' Bush' election, and appealing to them is essential.

I was very impressed with him in that interview. Too bad I'll never have a chance to vote for him-doubtful anyway.

He impresses me, too.  I'm hopeful that he'll be like Kucinich, and really stick it out, even if he's losing.  I honestly believe (or hope...) that there's a big chuck of Republicans hiding in the closet in embarrassment over the Bush Presidency.  If they group around him, he could do much better than people expect, though I still doubt he'll win.

Ron Paul will still get a nomination in 2008.  If not as a Republican, he'll be on the ballot as a Libertarian.