dirty tactics by clinton campaign?

[saz]

Hillary Clinton's Dirty Campaign Tactics

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted January 15, 2008.

In Iowa, New Hampshire and now Nevada, the Clinton campaign has sought to suppress the vote of her rivals' supporters.


The latest example is from Nevada, where the Nevada State Education Association is widely seen as filing a suit on Clinton's behalf to stop Las Vegas' most powerful union, Culinary Workers Local 226, from caucusing inside downtown casinos after the union endorsed Barack Obama. The tactic foments a split along racial and class lines in arguably the strongest union city in America.

While Clinton campaign surrogates have verbally accused Obama of many things, from "fairy tale" answers on Iraq to being a drug user while they served the country more nobly, intentionally suppressing voters -- especially under-represented, low-income minority union members -- stands out in 2008's Democratic presidential campaign.

After all, the Democratic National Committee moved Nevada's caucuses to the top of the primary lineup so minority voices could be heard -- and no organization is more aligned with those voters in Nevada than the Culinary Union, whose training materials for its members are printed in four languages. In contrast, the state teachers, whose suit seeks to stop those workers from caucusing in nine "at-large" precincts in big downtown casinos, have a statewide base because its members work throughout Nevada.

The NSEA suit claims the at-large casino caucuses are not fair to the state's other voters because they will likely be overrun with voters, thereby skewing the proportional representation of Clark County delegates to the state party convention.

Neither NSEA officials nor their Las Vegas lawyers returned calls on Monday. However their suit states that "by packing as much as 10 percent or more delegates into the county convention, the at-large precinct caucus system (created for the casinos) substantially diminishes the voting power of delegates from other county precinct caucuses."

In other words, a strong turnout from the tens of thousands of Culinary Workers Union members in Las Vegas, where 70 percent of Nevada voters live, could swing the state's early foray into presidential politics. In 2000, fewer than 1,000 people participated in Nevada's caucuses. In 2004, that number was about 9,000. This year, estimates are in the tens of thousands.

Nevada political insiders say the NSEA lawsuit is designed to suppress Obama's voters.

"That's the common narrative at this point," said Pilar Weiss, the Culinary Workers Union's political director, when asked if there was any other way to interpret the suit. "A caucus system is all proportional representation. It's not unfair in any way. They (the state Democratic Party) made an accommodation for Clark County."

Another Nevada activist who has worked for years in the state was even blunter.

"This (caucus) plan was created by some of the same people who are plaintiffs in the suit against it," he said. "It's not that they didn't like the plan when Clinton was ahead."

link (http://www.alternet.org/story/73782/)


now, bill is getting testy in his support (http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2008/01/in-tense-exchange-president.html) for the lawsuit.

[King PSYZ]

As a resident of Las Vegas I find this lawsuit deplorable and maybe if the teachers union worked harder at doing a better job rather than file a lawsuit it really has zero buisness filing we'd have smarter, better educated children here.

It's asinine on every level, to say it's unfair is to not understand that casino employees make up a huge percentage of the population and these casinos cannot afford to let their entire staff take several hours to go home and caucus on a Saturday of all days.

This is a tourist town, if these employees have any chance of having their vote heard it's only if they make the process accesible to them.

This is like the same shit her and her DNC lackeys tried to pull in Iowa scaring college students into beliving it was illegal for them to caucus for their canidate when it's perfectly legal and expected as their right as well as their duty as Americans to make their voice heard.

Shit like this puts me further and further from considering her as a viable answer for president.

[Documad]

I don't know anything about the lawsuit and I'm not defending Hillary, but I don't understand.

Why are caucuses being held in casinos? That seems like a really bad idea. I don't think caucuses should be held at a workplace--especially a workplace that's dominated by a political group that has endorsed a particular candidate. It wouldn't be as bad if this was a primary because you just show up and vote anonymously. But I participate in caucuses and they are based upon getting groups of your fellow caucus goers to band together and support the same thing in public. There is lots of peer pressure. It's just so wrong to have it at someone's workplace because it gives the people who work there and know each other an unfair advantage. I certainly wouldn't want to caucus at a casino.

It seems especially bad because people work at casinos 24 hours a day. If you caucus at a school at night, it's no longer anyone's workplace--it's basically an empty building. Aren't there enough schools and government buildings in or near Vegas?

I'm not hostile to unions at all, but it bugs me when they dominate a political meeting. Four homes ago, I lived someplace with a big union contingent and it caused me to quit going to caucuses until I moved. An individual never stood a chance of being a delegate in that neighborhood. But at least we were caucusing on neutral ground--at an elementary school.

Having said all that, the fact that Hillary is getting involved in this at all makes it look like she's in trouble. It makes her look scared. I guess she's fighting for her political life.

It might be unwise to publicly fight this, but I don't see it as a dirty tactic. I've heard about some real dirty tactics though. I'd like to see what all the candidates are sending in the mail the week before the caucuses and primaries.

[King PSYZ]

well I can tell you right now the only dem cannidate with smear ads in Vegas right now is Clinton if that tells you anything...

I see your point, but at the same time the location of schools and such in vicinity to the strip is pretty minimal. The caucusses would be held at nine casinos, so it would be several casinos employees gathered and they do not all see eye to eye. Also it's open to anyone, so if you work closer to the strip than your neighborhood caucus you still have a shot to vote.

UNLV would be the next best choice, but it's still away from the strip and would create a near shut down of strip casinos having to loos a large portion of their staff from 11am-2pm

[yeahwho]

Wow, I've been out of it lately but this is completely Hillary Clinton's style. To bog down the process and say it's unfair. Unfair because her vision, her micromanaging style and her real political power does not play well to these people, the members of the Culinary Workers Union (http://www.culinaryunion226.org/rtfeature.asp?rt_feature_id=7).

I am probably just nuts, but I cannot see any real upside to electing Hillary Clinton, unless it's a gender issue. I'm not even going to go there, but to actually consider something akin to the past few decades of life here in the United States with yet another of one the same two families who've felt some bizarre sense of entitlement is crazy. NUTZ!

This campaign makes some obvious points, the old school and guard of the democratic party has accomplished zilch while Bush went on a tantrum. She was very complicit with much of the path that brought us here today.

I can't stand her, she'll be eaten alive by the republicans. She could care less about the biggest employer in Las Vegas. Or the folks who make that wage to keep her room clean. She wants the White House at any cost, but the lines have been drawn and I believe she'll be confronting a very powerful force with Barack and Edwards.

[saz]

It might be unwise to publicly fight this, but I don't see it as a dirty tactic. I've heard about some real dirty tactics though. I'd like to see what all the candidates are sending in the mail the week before the caucuses and primaries.

i tend to view attempts at voter suppression as a very dirty tactic. anyways, the lawsuit was dismissed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/17/judge-dismisses-nevada-ca_n_82029.html). (y)

[Documad]

I didn't see it as vote suppression, but I was just focusing on keeping the caucuses out of casinos. I also think it would be wrong to hold caucuses at union halls -- especially if the union endorsed one of the candidates.

I still think it was dumb for Clinton to get involved. The bad publicity could hurt her with some voters she needs.

[yeahwho]

I didn't see it as vote suppression, but I was just focusing on keeping the caucuses out of casinos. I also think it would be wrong to hold caucuses at union halls -- especially if the union endorsed one of the candidates.

I still think it was dumb for Clinton to get involved. The bad publicity could hurt her with some voters she needs.

I still want to vomit all over her. Sorry, just completely sick of the "I understand the way of the World so much more than everybody else" attitude this campaign of Clinton pushes.

Doesn't matter, if your part of the reason this planet is so fucked up your part of the problem, not the solution. I understand that much.

[Documad]

Sadly, I don't see a big difference between Obama and Clinton. He just wasn't a senator when the Iraq war started, which was lucky for him.

The truth is that I can live with whoever the democrats pick because they're all better than any of the republicans (from my personal perspective). And it's time to let a democrat appoint some federal judges. I want the nomination process to help get the candidates ready for the general election without wounding them too bad.

Kerry got the nomination too easily last time. I think that if Obama ends up being the candidate, this tussling with Clinton will have been beneficial for him. He certainly had no expertise with tough campaigns before now.

[saz]

(y)

Sadly, I don't see a big difference between Obama and Clinton.

I think that if Obama ends up being the candidate, this tussling with Clinton will have been beneficial for him. He certainly had no expertise with tough campaigns before now.

i completely agree. they are both status quo moderates. obama's talk of "change" is laughable.

the republican slime machine will have a field day with obama. so if he receives the nomination, he better ditch all of this touchy-feely rhetoric of bipartisanship and unity, and get tough. hillary has the experience of dealing with the nasty republican attacks, although she is for some reason a polarizing figure. either way, i think that both clinton and obama have their electability issues.

[yeahwho]

I think the biggest difference is this, Hillary will not be the most electable of the two. We're talking Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton Dynasty. The republicans will suddenly be perceived not only as the party of change, but all of the decades of talk radio's constant smear of Hillary Clinton is going to be incredibly tough to cut through.

I am the very first to admit Obama has less experience (Christ, Hillary lived in the fucking White House for 8 years) but SO WHAT?

I strongly feel Hillary to be less electable than Barack. She has been vilified beyond parody. I do like Hillary, I like her because of her ability to come out swinging in the face of all of the ill will she's endured and now she's actually leading the contenders for the White House. That said I think she'll lose the Presidential race and we'll see another Republican in the White House for four more years.

That frightens me. It is perhaps tunnel vision on my part, but I cannot shake the scenario of her being "Swifted" beyond comparison.

[QueenAdrock]

The thing is though, Obama keeps talking about having "clean elections" and unity among the parties and he's sick of dirty politics as we know it and all that stuff. You just KNOW the Republican candidate is going to run a smear machine that will try to run the Democratic candidate into the ground - and it may be harder for Obama to fight back due to all of his "hope" speeches and whatnot. It would be seen as hypocritical to run tons of smear ads against his opponent - and sadly, those are the kind of ad campaigns that really reach to people. Remember that stupid terrorist ad in 2004 that Bush ran that showed those wolves and basically said if you vote for Kerry it's like putting your children out in the snow to be torn apart by angry wolves? Yeah, people were scared shitless by those ads. Kerry didn't fight back as much either (only 25% of his ads were attacking Bush, versus Bush's 75%), because he talked about having hope and change and all that stuff for America too. Would Obama be able to fight the Republicans toe-to-toe and not be seen as a hypocrite?

Adversely, Clinton has dealt with Republicans her entire career in the senate, and beforehand. She knows what kind of tricks they have up their sleeve and I'm sure she wouldn't be against throwing back whatever it is they gave them. Also, Obama has a lot of talk about "hope and prosperity" but doesn't have as comprehensive a plan for the economy, renewable fuels, or health care as the other two major Democratic candidates.

So, to sum up, I'm STILL unsure between the two front runners, and I hate it. I may just stick with Edwards, even though this would be the third time I changed my mind. I've never been this fickle in an election before, but we've never had an election that everyone has major selling points as well as major drawbacks to the point that it's hard to sort through it all to pick one.

[yeahwho]

So, to sum up, I'm STILL unsure between the two front runners, and I hate it. I may just stick with Edwards, even though this would be the third time I changed my mind. I've never been this fickle in an election before, but we've never had an election that everyone has major selling points as well as major drawbacks to the point that it's hard to sort through it all to pick one.

These are sweet luxuries, as much as I laugh at Giuliani (trying to be President of 9/11), I honestly think he's brighter than GWB. Hillary is fucking leap years ahead of W. So was every other cat out on the street. It's just elect-ability that worries me. If the crew that runs the campaign is back, meaning way back in the background with shitloads of $$$ and no conscious whatsoever, we're fucked. Obama and to my mind especially Hillary.

[Documad]

I think that it's possible that Clinton is more electable than Obama. There's a lot we don't know about Obama. I feel like we already know all the bad stuff about Clinton. Bill Clinton had nothing but scandals surrounding him and he got elected twice. Not that Hillary Clinton is as charismatic as Bill, but she's a tough cookie.

Would anyone like to explain to me exactly how Obama is going to get us out of Iraq? Because I read all the stuff on his website and it there was nothing concrete. He's saying that he will withdraw troops if it won't jeopardize blah blah blah but he promises that the troops will be in the region and ready to pounce if it all turns to shit. And it's all going to turn to shit if we leave. We're in for the long haul, and he knows it. His positions are just platitudes.

[Documad]

By the way yeahwho, I share your terror that the democrats are going to fuck this up yet again. I'm nervous about Clinton, but I'm at least as nervous about Obama.

It seems like we should be able to elect any democrat in 2008 but you can usually count on the democrats to blow a sure thing.

[QueenAdrock]

It's very true that the Democrats usually blow things, but we won in '06, remember? It was a squeaker, but people were pissed off about the war enough to actually get out there and vote Democratic. Bush's approval ratings are laughable, and it's going to be hard to get another Republican in office since the term "Republican in the White House" is synoymous with "complete and total failure." I think that was a major point why Gore wasn't as popular in '00, a lot of people were sick of the Democratic president at that point. There's always a pattern of good times, then going to shit, then people voting for the other party for a change.

Plus, look at the Republican candidates out there. My mom and I have a lot of convos about the parties and elections and stuff (yes, we're nerds), and she brought up the excellent point that there are a LOT of Republicans out there who hate Romney, Huckabee, and McCain. I would argue that the Democratic candidates out there aren't "hated" by Democrats themselves, and not many Democrats would vote for one of those three Republicans over any of the Dems in the field now, but it may work the other way around. So the Republican vote is therefore fractured, and Democrats are more stabilized.

By no means should we get cocky, but we shouldn't admit failure or have the same terrorizing fears of '04 or '00. We have an actual, fighting chance - no incumbent president to fight an uphill battle over. It's a clean slate, the Republicans' names are mud, we just need a competent, smart, driven Democrat to take the wheel and steer.

[Documad]

I agree with everything you said, QA. I'm still scared, but that's my nature. I'm a glass half empty gal.

I am encouraged by reports that the democrats who have been showing up for primaries and caucuses are excited and the republicans who aren't evangelicals are fairly subdued. That is good news for the general election.

One thing that worries me is that we did take over the house almost exactly a year ago, but what do we have to show for it? I realize that nothing happens overnight and I know how much power the president wields, but I worry that some voters are going to feel that the democratic congress should have done more to get us out of Iraq, do something about health care, etc.

[DroppinScience]

Would Obama be able to fight the Republicans toe-to-toe and not be seen as a hypocrite?

You know, if he was able to handle John Howard's attack (saying that an Obama victory would embolden terrorists), on only the second day he announced his candidacy, as well as any potential GOP attack, I'm not terribly worried about him. He's a big boy.

[yeahwho]

Would anyone like to explain to me exactly how Obama is going to get us out of Iraq? Because I read all the stuff on his website and it there was nothing concrete. He's saying that he will withdraw troops if it won't jeopardize blah blah blah but he promises that the troops will be in the region and ready to pounce if it all turns to shit. And it's all going to turn to shit if we leave. We're in for the long haul, and he knows it. His positions are just platitudes.

It's everybody running for POTUS that speaks platitudes then, the other two major players have tightened up their issues page to closely resemble Obama's page, Edwards (http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/), Clinton (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/) have there identikits down to a tight rulebook just like Obama's. The thing that bugs me more than any of this lightweight "don't offend anybody" style of ending a war.... you know a WAR, is really if I think about it the most civilized and humane candidate has always been my man Kucinich (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/kucinich-unveils-comprehensive-exit-plan-to-bring-troops-home,-stabilize-iraq/).

Dennis' Strength Through Peace (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/strength-through-peace/) idea is one of the finest political hours and ideas being bounced around earth currently, but the poor guy cannot get out of the peanut gallery.

We are the planet’s first superpower able to destroy any society within an hour either conventionally or atomically. The fact that we can slice through any army on earth in hours has not prevented:

1) Growing antipathy and distrust towards the U.S. across the globe
2) Escalating bloodshed in Iraq
3) Looming wars in Iran and Syria.
4) Increasing terrorist acts against U.S. interests
5) Spiraling U.S. military spending
6) Spreading weapons of mass destruction
7) Growing conflicts and tension across the world
8) Ongoing arms race


By abandoning the arrogant “my way or the highway” attitude we can reengage the world in productive discussion on our common goals of universal peace and prosperity. Maintaining our current course of action will only end with a world in flames and economic ruin.

My take on the Edwards/Clinton/Obama group is that Obama is a big boy like droppin' says, I've seen him handle himself quite strongly during the debates belying any of his inexperience and sounding very correct and quite strong against some extremely intelligent political genius's. Thats amazing and refreshing, I know it's gotta be scary for Hillary and Edwards both. He's good, damn good.

[DroppinScience]

Dennis' Strength Through Peace (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/strength-through-peace/) idea is one of the finest political hours and ideas being bounced around earth currently, but the poor guy cannot get out of the peanut gallery.

You know why I think he's relegated to the periphary by the media? For one, "Kucinich" isn't a brand name like a Clinton or a Bush. Two, it's his looks. The guy looks like a garden gnome, sorry to say. If he talked the way he talked and looked like a Kennedy, the media would pay more attention.

[QueenAdrock]

My worry isn't whether or not he's a "big enough boy" to fight back, I worry how it's going to look if he does, after all of his talks about leaving dirty politics behind. What will people think if on the one hand he's all about putting a fresh face on politics and leaving smearing behind, but then does it himself? That to me reeks of hypocrisy.

I personally think he should have toned down the whole "clean campaigning" thing because in order to win, people can't follow that kind of rhetoric.

[yeahwho]

My worry isn't whether or not he's a "big enough boy" to fight back, I worry how it's going to look if he does, after all of his talks about leaving dirty politics behind. What will people think if on the one hand he's all about putting a fresh face on politics and leaving smearing behind, but then does it himself? That to me reeks of hypocrisy.

I personally think he should have toned down the whole "clean campaigning" thing because in order to win, people can't follow that kind of rhetoric.

The tactics of Hillary Clinton leave many (of course myself included) ice cold. I'm not saying Obama is going to raise the level of campaigning to some new high, but Hillary is not leaving any avenue closed to her campaign. Here's one of the sites she's of course not affiliated with HillaryIs44 (http://www.hillaryis44.org/) and an article about the site from a non US media outlet, UKGuardianTechPg.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/20/internet.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=media)

Obama is going to defend himself as he did in the debates when Clinton quoted AP and other media outlets accusing him of various kinks, but as the articles turned out to be, just quotes from her own campaign workers to the AP. I think the thing we're beginning to see is swifting and labeling early on, like the Republicans claims that McCain was not a war hero. It's crazy as bat shit and actually fun, we'll see how it plays out. I am completely on Baracks side either way.

[yeahwho]

Here's Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4162996&page=1)today defending himself against Bill Clinton. I love it, even if it backfires it actually brings up a dual political observation about the past White House. If your catching the drift of his real aim. The Clinton's are far from smear tactics. A nice web tactic by Obama on Bill, who is continuing to stay in the web.

[Documad]

I've got to say that I've been watching the debate and Obama doesn't seem to actually SAY anything. Just like his website, it sounds good on the surface but he can't answer questions about the substance. Maybe some people like that, but he's rambling. Edwards and Clinton are giving understandable answers.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, one thing that had concerned me in that article I posted up about a week ago:

"The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy."

Very concerning to me, indeed.

[DroppinScience]

My worry isn't whether or not he's a "big enough boy" to fight back, I worry how it's going to look if he does, after all of his talks about leaving dirty politics behind. What will people think if on the one hand he's all about putting a fresh face on politics and leaving smearing behind, but then does it himself? That to me reeks of hypocrisy.

I personally think he should have toned down the whole "clean campaigning" thing because in order to win, people can't follow that kind of rhetoric.

He seems to be already mired in a "the gloves are off" with Clinton (how many times has the media said THAT? :rolleyes: ).

I'm not certain we'll see the same dirty campaigning as 2004. For example, if Huckabee gets the nod, he vows to play it clean. McCain was someone who strongly opposed the Swift Boating of '04, so I don't think he'll do the same. Romney... well, he'd probably play it dirty, but we'll see.

There's a backlash to the ugliness of '04.

I dunno, I just want cynics proven wrong this year. (y)

[QueenAdrock]

I dunno, I just want cynics proven wrong this year. (y)

Yeah, I wanted the same in 2004. After all that, I just turned into one.

[yeahwho]

OK, here is what I've gleamed from the 3 front runners out of the Democratic party so far,

As of last nights debate,

Hillary has morphed once more, I thought she would stay with Billary but now it's becoming clear she's morphing into Bullary. She gets the most boos I can ever recall during presidential debates, with a pretty good round of booing again last nite.

Barack Obama takes too long in his own defense from attacks, stutters a bit (trying to get a word in edge wise) and appears weak when he does so. The "101 present votes" while in senate is something he should of been more prepared to respond to. Preparation, preparation, preparation.

John Edwards has a presence problem. His portrayal of a "Fighter of the Working Family" needs to be revamped, he should actually begin to fight out against McCain, Romney, Huckabee as if he was the front runner and ignore these other two twits. It will give him some much needed media and presence at the debates.

What do ya' all think?

[yeahwho]

This is a pretty sick remix, Ch Ch Ch Changes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJtgEfIla0A&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x86699)! (turn and face the strain)

[saz]

It would be seen as hypocritical to run tons of smear ads against his opponent - and sadly, those are the kind of ad campaigns that really reach to people. Would Obama be able to fight the Republicans toe-to-toe and not be seen as a hypocrite?

growing a backbone, a spine, or balls, doesn't require running smear ads. it's being tough and responding immediately to republican slime. kerry failed in this regard when he didn't respond immediately to the swift boat campaign, and didn't demand a recount or closer inspection of the tabulation of votes in ohio. and obama is fooling himself with all of this talk of bipartisanship. republicans aren't interested in universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, or getting corporate lobbyists and their influence out of washington. and just look at how divisive they've been, and what they've done over the last seven years. they're despicable and deserve to be walked all over.

By the way yeahwho, I share your terror that the democrats are going to fuck this up yet again. I'm nervous about Clinton, but I'm at least as nervous about Obama.

It seems like we should be able to elect any democrat in 2008 but you can usually count on the democrats to blow a sure thing.

if edwards doesn't receive the nomination (considering that he is the most electable (http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/cnn-national-matchups-john-edwards-most-electable-121207001.html) democrat (http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/john-edwards-is-the-most-electable-democrat.html)), and it's either hillary or obama up against say mccain (i initially thought that his age would be a serious drawback, but i'm not so sure at the moment), then perhaps the democrats deserve to lose. maybe if they lose this upcoming election, the party, its base and members will finally do some serious proverbial soul searching, introspection, and will finally realize that the message of edwards, kucinich and other progressives is the way to go. after all, fdr and the new deal democrats were a bulwark against the republicans and corporate america, unlike today's useless cowards like harry reid, nancy pelosi et al.

You know, if he was able to handle John Howard's attack (saying that an Obama victory would embolden terrorists), on only the second day he announced his candidacy, as well as any potential GOP attack, I'm not terribly worried about him. He's a big boy.

i'm afraid that this (http://jessicafertitta.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/obama_borat_parody.jpg), this (http://www.usvetdsp.com/gifs/obama_char2.jpg), this (http://home.att.net/~phildragoo/wsb/media/240742/site1119.JPG), and this (http://www.shopmetrospy.com/cNcgraphics/Product_421_PrSpare2.jpg) is just the mere tip of the iceberg. if obama receives the nomination, the gop slime machine will have a field day.

You know why I think he's relegated to the periphary by the media? For one, "Kucinich" isn't a brand name like a Clinton or a Bush. Two, it's his looks. The guy looks like a garden gnome, sorry to say. If he talked the way he talked and looked like a Kennedy, the media would pay more attention.

you couldn't be more wrong. why? just look at john edwards. he's clearly the most progressive candidate out of the top three, with hillary and obama stealing his ideas, initiatives and economic populism. he's way ahead of them on global warming, healthcare, bringing the troops home from iraq, the economy, banning lobbyists from the white house and scaling back the ironclad grip they have on washington and congress. and he's charismatic and charming as hell, and very telegenic. but corporate america fears (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/13/6352/) him. edwards wants to go after them, and their consolidation over the media. therefore the mainstream corporate media is ignoring edwards and going to unprecedented lengths to hype up the hillary vs. obama scam. so, considering how edwards is being treated, ignored and disregarded, it's no wonder why msnbc got kucinich excluded from the las vegas debate.

[Documad]

What do ya' all think?

I thought the questions were horrifically bad. Especially the one about who would MLK endorse. Good lord.

I thought that Clinton and Edwards were equally good/bad. Clinton is the best debater. You might not like what she says, and you might not believe her, but what she says is clear and concise.

Edwards says the same thing over and over, even when it's not answering the question. But he says it very well.

Obama is a poor debater, which surprises me because he's the best speaker when he's doing his own thing, which probably means that he has a good speech writer but he doesn't have the experience of having to defend his positions. Obama can answer personal questions well -- he handles the race questions well. When it comes to his substance, his policies, he's quite inarticulate. Clinton is the best at explaining policy issues.

I think it's instructive that we had different views of the same thing. I thought that Obama got more time to talk than anyone and that it damaged him because his answers were rambling. He was always given 30 seconds and then he would speak for what felt like 5 minutes. He would have been better served to say something snappy in 30 seconds.

I think they're all perfectly fine candidates. I think that Clinton would probably be our best president but that Edwards would probably be our most electable candidate. I think that Obama could really be something 8 years from now when he has more experience. But if he spends that time in the Senate, he will have had to vote on issues and it will probably damage him. The only reason he comes off as fresh right now is because he hasn't had to vote on things and has no track record. Anyone who has been in the senate for a while will have taken a few inconsistent positions and will be called a flip flopper. :rolleyes: