Philadelphia Debate

[RobMoney$]

link

From NBC's Chuck Todd
This was not a good debate for Obama, period. But it wasn't a great debate for Clinton either. Of course, that may not matter to Team Clinton. In a twp-way debate, it's not about which candidate narrowly wins -- but which candidate gets pummeled in the post-debate reviews. And Obama will get pummeled because well he did get pummeled, a little bit by Clinton and a little bit by the moderators.

In the first 40 minutes of the debate, most of the questioning was on Obama's negatives (except for a lone Bosnia-sniper question to Clinton) and that's what helped create what was a near disastrous performance by Obama in those first 40 minutes. He was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives. (Did he really compare Tom Coburn to a one-time '60s radical/terrorist?) Clinton, meanwhile, piled on, particularly (and surprisingly, actually) on Ayers. While I'm not sure if Clinton's piling on ever is good for her in the long run -- see her current poll standing -- it created some post-debate issues for Obama. Many news organizations will feel compelled to do Ayers stories in the next few days. While some may question the fairness and relevancy of the Ayers issue, it's not going to be good for Obama.

This debate is going to lead a lot of Obama supporters to ratchet up the calls on Clinton to either withdraw or tone down the attacks. Clinton supporters will point to this debate as proof that he's not yet ready for the general, that's why she should stay in, and that's why superdelegates should overturn the winner of pledged delegates.
Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn't step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up. Clinton wasn't very warm (outside of he first few minutes), but she didn't have the spotlight on her very bright. And as we've noted in "First Thoughts" quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Tonight, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, I expect Clinton to benefit. But the question is whether she can sustain any benefit since as the negativity goes on, she pays a bigger price than Obama. Let's see what the PA Dem voting public decides in six days. A big Clinton victory and this debate will be seen as an important turning point, a narrow victory (less than five points) and she could find herself facing more calls to get out.
Could tonight's true winner be John McCain? We're betting that's the unanimous pundit scoring tonight.

Anyone see it?

[Documad]

I can't stand watching the debates anymore. My personal opinion is that this country cannot withstand another four years of republicans being in charge of all of the federal agencies that enforce our laws. When it comes to the courts, it's not just the supreme court, but ALL of the federal courts that are getting swamped with socially conservative republican appointments. I think we're better off when the president's party switches back and forth so that we get some balance in the courts. Both Clinton and Obama would be better than McCain, because McCain will have to come in and placate the part of his base that doesn't like or trust him. McCain will appoint very socially conservative judges and despite the lip service he pays to environmental issues, he's not going to appoint strong regulators as heads of all the federal agencies. He's going to do what Bush did and appoint corporate types to regulate their own industries.

Could tonight's true winner be John McCain? We're betting that's the unanimous pundit scoring tonight.

That's my fear. Although I would have preferred Clinton to Obama at the outset, at this point, I really hope that Clinton does not win the next three primaries. If she loses even one of them, I think she has to get out.

It also makes me sad that Hillary Clinton will likely be remembered for refusing to acknowledge when she cannot win and for going down in an ugly way instead of a classy way. I do not blame her for contesting the primaries. I blame her for the way she is doing it. She is saying things that will damage Obama in the general election. I don't think democrats should do that. She can say that she would be better than Obama, but she can never hint that McCain would be better than Obama. I don't want politicians who do that in my party. Remember when this started and the democratic candidates all stood on those debate stages and said that any of them were better than any of the republicans? I felt so much better about the party then.

[QueenAdrock]

Originally Posted by Documad

I blame her for the way she is doing it. She is saying things that will damage Obama in the general election. I don't think democrats should do that. She can say that she would be better than Obama, but she can never hint that McCain would be better than Obama. I don't want politicians who do that in my party. Remember when this started and the democratic candidates all stood on those debate stages and said that any of them were better than any of the republicans? I felt so much better about the party then.

Bingo. She's treading thin ice. She goes between talking about a "dream ticket" with her and Obama, to bashing the hell out of him. She says she's "honored" to share the stage with him, and then stabs him in the back. I understand that politics are usually dirty, but within your party? I mean, Jesus. How hypocritical is it going to look if she ends up backing him in the long run? And none of this seems to occur to her. Or at least, it does for a little, and then she goes back to not caring what she says about him. It's a tricky balancing act between saying you're better than the other in order to win the election and still saying they're a great choice in the chance that you lose, I know. But at this point, when all polls and calculations point to the fact that she isn't going to win the nomination, instead of being more supportive of him she's become even more aggressive and pulled out the claws in order to try to climb her way to the top. Bad form.

[yeahwho]

McCain and now Hillary are saying to Americans that Obama thinks your unhappy, how in the fuck that is a news story I do not know? Unhappy? Were pretty fucking miserable to put it bluntly, our jobs are across the borders and off to China, India and Bum Fuck who knows where, the banks are being bailed out on faulty loans and we're fighting a perpetual unprovoked losing war?

The things that get harped on with with mock horror and intentional disingenuousness — Rev. Wright's comments about race, Michelle Obama's comments about being proud of her country, Barack Obama's comments about bitter white folks — they're all exactly the same observation: Somebody, somewhere, in the country might not be happy with the way the country functions. What's more, they might have a damned good reason to be dissatisfied.


This isn't an unacceptable thing to suggest. It's the very foundation of democracy, and CNN, MSNBC and FOX News all know it, yet still feign incomprehension. They should fucking ashamed of themselves.

[saz]

The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media

Greg Mitchell Posted April 16, 2008 | 10:16 PM (EST)

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV?

link


In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Page C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

link


Visitors to ABC's site weren't much kinder. Here's a sampling on page 1:

...This is AWFUL. Thank goodness for Jon Stewart and Comedy Central. He does a better job of interviewing and asking relevant questions of his guests in 5 minutes than these 2 yahoos have in more than an hour. ABC should be ashamed. George should be ashamed. Charlie should be ashamed. This isn't a debate. This is a hit job.

...Asinine questions - abysmal debate. Fire these silly moderators NOW. They insult the intelligence of the American people.

...I haven't watched ABC "news" in a few years. I see I haven't been missing much! MORE THAN half the debate turned over to Bittergate, Rev Wright, the Weathermen, Tuzla, FLAG LAPEL PINS? Most of the televised debates I've seen this campaign season have been lame, but this one takes the prize. Either you guys are morons or you think that we are. Either way, I'm glad to have seen the last of you. Really, really bad.No winners in this debate, but a definite loser: ABC "NEWS"

...This is the WORST debate I have ever watched. Never in my life have I been more disenchanted with the news media as a whole, especially a news organization such as ABC that I believed to have some sense of purpose to bring substantive information and perspective to the American people. Americans are tired of the snipping between the candidates and the lack of discussion about what each candidate will do to help the country. ABC News should be ashamed for presenting such a failure of a debate.

...Are you kidding me? "We don't have much time left. Let's have a MINUTE to talk about gas?" Charlie and George, you need a crash course on the distinction between "issues" and an "agendas." Hint: The candidates have the former; you have the latter.

...ABC News . . you should be ashamed of this debate. Where did you get these questions?? Where are the ISSUES. We have heard enough about Rev Wright and what Hillary did or didn't do in Bosnia. Let's hear about issues that matter such as the cost of Health Care, the war in Iraq, the Energy Crisi, the Crisis in Our Schools, and THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!

...Geoirge and Charlie= narcissistic elite "journalists" trying to score a rating point, but asking questions that would yield a "F" in middle school journalism. This debate may be used for years in journalism classes, on how to not run a debate. Disney-who owns ABC- get better cartoon characters to run a debate. Elmer Fudd would do much better.

...Has ABC News noticed that your so called "debate" has been universally panned? Charles Gibson is a pandering person more fit for the National Enquirer than a responsible news program. Stephanopoulis is barely better. I am so disappointed but not surprised.

link

[abcdefz]

I have to wonder if the floundering was an act, just to keep drawing ridiculous questions so it would wind up backfiring later...

[D_Raay]

That was absolutely horrendous to watch...

Trivial wastes of airtime punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resemble the real concerns of American voters.

It is becoming clear the media is in collusion to distract us with non-issues.

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by Documad

It also makes me sad that Hillary Clinton will likely be remembered for refusing to acknowledge when she cannot win and for going down in an ugly way instead of a classy way. I do not blame her for contesting the primaries. I blame her for the way she is doing it. She is saying things that will damage Obama in the general election. I don't think democrats should do that. She can say that she would be better than Obama, but she can never hint that McCain would be better than Obama. I don't want politicians who do that in my party. Remember when this started and the democratic candidates all stood on those debate stages and said that any of them were better than any of the republicans? I felt so much better about the party then.

Perhaps you didn't actually see the dabate because I thought she was extremely classy when asked about the party being torn apart.

link
go to around the 8:50 mark on that video.

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by D_Raay

That was absolutely horrendous to watch...

Trivial wastes of airtime punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resemble the real concerns of American voters.

It is becoming clear the media is in collusion to distract us with non-issues.

I would say that may be true about the first half or so of the debate, but the second half was all about the issues.

Iraq, Taxes/Economy, Gun Control in Inner Cities v. Right to bear Arms, Affirmative Action, Gas Prices.
Obama looked amatuer-ish at best on all of the above while Hillary knocked every question out of the park.

[D_Raay]

I understand but how many actually kept watching after the first half?

Furthermore, I think Mr. Obama understandedly was a little annoyed at that point.

[Documad]

Okay, so I decided to watch. I'm about halfway through. The articles are correct. The first half is a disaster for ABC News. I just heard the question about why Obama doesn't wear the flag pin. WHO THE FUCK CARES? The "real people" who are asking questions are an embarrassment. If Clinton was smart, when it was her turn to talk, she would have been the one to say "let's talk about the real issues -- of course Obama is a patriotic citizen."

I used to like Charlie Gibson on GMA -- that's where he belongs. And Stephanopolous is like a little kid trying to pretend that he's a reporter. Remember when we had real reporters on network TV? None of them would have participated in this fox-news-style debate.

Well, on to the second half and the promised questions of substance . . . .

[Fan with a fan]

Heard illdoctrine's retort?

It's funny 'cause it's true...

[abcdefz]

Originally Posted by Documad

And Stephanopolous is like a little kid trying to pretend that he's a reporter.

HUGELY unprofessional to allow him to moderate this.

[DroppinScience]

I saw the clips on The Daily Show of Gibson saying: "Pledge right now that if you were the winner, would you choose the other to be your running mate and vice versa."

I'm sorry, but that's a complete waste of airtime.

[DroppinScience]

Originally Posted by abcdefz

HUGELY unprofessional to allow him to moderate this.

I agree. Why let a former Clinton administration official moderate the debate featuring his president's wife? We may as well have had Bush Sr. moderate the Bush-Kerry debates.

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by Documad

Okay, so I decided to watch. I'm about halfway through. The articles are correct. The first half is a disaster for ABC News. I just heard the question about why Obama doesn't wear the flag pin. WHO THE FUCK CARES?

I think a lot of people care to be honest.
Of the people I've talked to in the past day since the debate, most of those people were making their choice on things like why Obama doesn't wear the red, white, and blue, and Rev. Wright.

One person told me flat out that Obama had his vote until 2 days ago when he heard one of the talking heads on TV (I forget which one) question Obama's love for America and why he doesn't wear the Red, White, and Blue. I'll also add that this person is retired military with over 30 years and was a Vietnam POW.


Let Obama and his supporters keep thinking people don't care about these type of issues and it will wind up singlehandedly costing him the race.

[Documad]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

I think a lot of people care to be honest.
Of the people I've talked to in the past day since the debate, most of those people were making their choice on things like why Obama doesn't wear the red, white, and blue, and Rev. Wright.

One person told me flat out that Obama had his vote until 2 days ago when he heard one of the talking heads on TV (I forget which one) question Obama's love for America and why he doesn't wear the Red, White, and Blue. I'll also add that this person is retired military with over 30 years and was a Vietnam POW.


Let Obama and his supporters keep thinking people don't care about these type of issues and it will wind up singlehandedly costing him the race.

Hugely depressing. We might as well give up on this country's future if people are really that stupid. I care so much more about what a candidate actually does than the accessories he wears.

I won't throw in the towel yet though. We're still in the democratic primaries and the democrats who get excited about caucuses and primaries tend to be self-destructive idiots.

My dad was a veteran and a republican and he was never a dumbass. He was a very smart guy.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

I think a lot of people care to be honest.
Of the people I've talked to in the past day since the debate, most of those people were making their choice on things like why Obama doesn't wear the red, white, and blue, and Rev. Wright.

One person told me flat out that Obama had his vote until 2 days ago when he heard one of the talking heads on TV (I forget which one) question Obama's love for America and why he doesn't wear the Red, White, and Blue. I'll also add that this person is retired military with over 30 years and was a Vietnam POW.


Let Obama and his supporters keep thinking people don't care about these type of issues and it will wind up singlehandedly costing him the race.

that's terrifying

[marsdaddy]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

I think a lot of people care to be honest.
Of the people I've talked to in the past day since the debate, most of those people were making their choice on things like why Obama doesn't wear the red, white, and blue, and Rev. Wright.

One person told me flat out that Obama had his vote until 2 days ago when he heard one of the talking heads on TV (I forget which one) question Obama's love for America and why he doesn't wear the Red, White, and Blue. I'll also add that this person is retired military with over 30 years and was a Vietnam POW.


Let Obama and his supporters keep thinking people don't care about these type of issues and it will wind up singlehandedly costing him the race.

Originally Posted by Documad

Hugely depressing. We might as well give up on this country's future if people are really that stupid. I care so much more about what a candidate actually does than the accessories he wears.

I won't throw in the towel yet though. We're still in the democratic primaries and the democrats who get excited about caucuses and primaries tend to be self-destructive idiots.

My dad was a veteran and a republican and he was never a dumbass. He was a very smart guy.

Originally Posted by Bob

that's terrifying

It's almost like you're talking out of both sides, Rob. Didn't you say the non-issue questions were a complete waste of time and the "real" issues got addressed in the 2nd half? Is a flag pin or whether Obama is a patriot a real issue? Not in the least. It's a smoke screen that is far away from the economy, war in Iraq, increased terrorist threat, healthcare, federal deficit, and so many other issues.

Unfortunately, the debates have become complete wastes of time that drive people AWAY from voting. At this point, I'll vote for either Obama or Clinton, but I still need to hear more about the issues to get inspired.

Having a black or female president should have happened long ago, but once that novelty wears off, what's the plan? How do we stop the country from circling the drain?

[Bob]

Originally Posted by marsdaddy

Having a black or female president should have happened long ago, but once that novelty wears off, what's the plan? How do we stop the country from circling the drain?

....native american president?

[funk63]

^haha. elect the best candidate regardless of race/sex/species?

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by marsdaddy

It's almost like you're talking out of both sides, Rob. Didn't you say the non-issue questions were a complete waste of time and the "real" issues got addressed in the 2nd half?

I'm probably the only person who posts in this forum that puts any weight at all on the "character" issues and people here have often criticized me for it.
My position is that although these types of issues are unimportant to a lot of people here, I believe that a majority of the American voting population are idiots who'll make their decisions based solely on things like Obama's pastor, his religion, or him not wearing a flag pin.
If it winds up being the things that cost him the race than obviously they were important enough.

Originally Posted by marsdaddy

Having a black or female president should have happened long ago, but once that novelty wears off, what's the plan? How do we stop the country from circling the drain?

I could not agree with you more.
I'm just not impressed with speeches or who's the smoothest talker, I'm more interested in who's got the better plan.
I just think once you get past race, gender, and the smooth talk, Obama's ideas are suspect at best.
The Emperor has no clothes.

[D_Raay]

And with debates like this and the media's coverage of Obama, especially of late, no one will ever know just what those ideas are.

Now lapel pins or middle names or who he has some association with...

It's shameful really. Why don't we just broadcast debates on the set of American Idol and get it over with.

[RobMoney$]

Here's an article about his ideas on taxes:

Obama's Tax Evasion (from the WSJ)



The persons of the press corps are furious with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, which means the pair must have done a pretty good job moderating Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Barack Obama had an off-night, so his media choir wants to shoot the questioners.

We thought the debate was one of the best yet, precisely because it probed the evasive rhetoric we've heard from both Democratic candidates throughout the campaign. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the exchanges between Mr. Gibson and Mr. Obama over taxes.

Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners, whom he describes as people with annual income lower than between $200,000 and $250,000. On Wednesday night, he repeated the vow. "I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes," said the Senator, "I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes."

But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.

Mr. Gibson dared to point out this inconsistency, which regularly goes unmentioned in Mr. Obama's fawning press coverage. But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue.

"Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Mr. Obama answered by citing rich hedge fund managers. Raising the capital gains tax is necessary, he said, "to make sure . . . that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can't do that for free."

But Mr. Gibson had noted that higher rates yield less revenue. So the news anchor tried again: "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up?" Mr. Obama responded that this "might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going." And then he went on a riff about John McCain and the housing market.

This is instructive. The facts about capital gains rates and revenues are well known to our readers, but we'll repeat them as a public service to the Obama campaign. As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn't really care because he's a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.

For her part, Hillary Clinton said that she, too, was open to hiking the capital gains tax rate, just not by as much as her rival. "I wouldn't raise it above the 20% if I raised it at all," she said. Of course, she too promised during Wednesday's debate not to raise "a single tax on middle-class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year."

Both candidates would have voters believe that taxes on investment income only affect the rich. But that's not what Internal Revenue Service returns show. The reality is that the Clinton and Obama rate increases would hit millions of Americans who make well under $200,000. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.

By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

In other words he dodged the question, as he so often does with impunity. But thanks to Mr. Gibson's persistence, for 90 minutes Wednesday night Mr. Obama didn't get away with it. The voters learned a lot about Mr. Obama, who needs to learn a lot more about taxes and revenue.

[afronaut]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

I'm probably the only person who posts in this forum that puts any weight at all on the "character" issues and people here have often criticized me for it.
My position is that although these types of issues are unimportant to a lot of people here, I believe that a majority of the American voting population are idiots who'll make their decisions based solely on things like Obama's pastor, his religion, or him not wearing a flag pin.
If it winds up being the things that cost him the race than obviously they were important enough.

And yet another reason why democracy is no good. How can any responsible government put their future leadership in the hands of people like American citizens, who can't differentiate between important issues like our rapidly crumbling economy and non-issues like a flag pin?

[RobMoney$]

Their positions on Iraq:

Clinton was asked a question from a citizen regarding whether the candidates have a real plan to get us out of iraq, or is it just propaganda? Says it just seems like all talk due to what goes on on the ground. Clinton committed to her plan, no matter what, she says her troops are coming home.

She says the military is civillian controlled, advice given, the President exercises his discretion. She's convinced that it's in america's best interest, military interest, and iraq interest, to leave iraq. She wants to bring everyone together to bring a plan about to bring people out. Says Iraqi's will no longer have a blank check. Now she's saying that only through a committment to withdrawl will Iraqi's do what they need to do to take power. Diplomatic efforts in the region will be made.

She's convinced and clear that she'll begin to withdraw troops in 60 days.

Followup question asking if she knows better than General Patreaus, she answers "No", that us staying in Iraq is rough and that there's no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world while in Iraq. There's no doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected.
Bottom line: We don't know what will happen if we withdraw, we do know what'll happen if we stay mired in Iraq. Military stretched thin, long deployments, we won't be able to reassert leadership and moral authority in the world.


Obama, same question. Plouffe said 16 months at the most.

Obama says that the Commander in Chief sets the mission, that's not the role of the Generals. The president latley has been taking cues from Patreaus, the President sets mission, troops carry out mission. Civilian leadership has set a bad mission, but it's time for us to set a strategy to make the American people safer.

He says he will always listen to the generals on how to carry out a mission, but he says that if they come to him to change tactics, he says he'll listen to them. Anti-american sentiment grows, al qaeda's strength increases, strategic reserve not free to deal with worldwide problems, wants to change national security priority.




Obama just seems out of his league talking about military missions and foreign policy.
You'll just change the mission? Fine, HOW?
Obama will set the "withdrawl" mission. The Generals will arrange the tactical withdrawal.
OK, Generals set up the withdrawal procedure.
How is he then guaranteeing the timeline without talking to the Generals first?

[yeahwho]

Why doesn't Hillary Clinton just invite John McCain down to the debate, sit beside her and share the mic with during the debates? I mean WTF already? The two of them are currently running against Obama they might as well share the podium since they love to share the same criticisms.

Hillary is annoying the American people now. Is her goal to now wear out Obama so he never gets a breather before the real campaign begins? I just don't get it. Another Clinton loyalist super-delegate cross sides last night to campaign with Obama. This is ridiculous.

Go campaign with McCain or just knock it off bitch, fuck he isn't running around ripping your race, religion and creed. He isn't even concerned about calling you an elitist with your $109 million dollar tax statement.

I don't even begin to understand. She is losing this race by all indicators, not in a big way, but it certainly is an ugly, ugly, ugly way.

[RobMoney$]

Gas prices?

Clinton
1) She wants to investigate gas prices. Believes there's market manipulation going on.
2) Quit putting oil into strategic reserve
3) Any gas tax moratorium like being advised, she'd like to see us have a windfall profits tax on the oil companies that pay for what we lose. Long term energy strategy is needed.

Obama:
Says clinton outlines are simliar to mine.
Investigate manipulation, call for a windfall profits tax, invest in renewable energies, raise efficiency standards on cars, reduce prices by reducing demand. We have to get serious about increasing standards.


I just want to know exactly what "Windfall Profits" are. How are they distinguished from "Normal" profits? If there's no way to account for them, how do you regulate them? It seems like that's part of business cycles just like large unexpected losses.

[yeahwho]

Obama Wins Vast Majority Of Pennsylvania Newspaper Endorsements

The Philadelphia Inquirer

Citizen's Voice

The Scranton Times-Tribune

The Allentown Morning Call

The Patriot News

Bucks County Courier

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Philadelphia Daily News

With one paper endorsing Hillary Clinton, the Daily Pennsylvanian

Obama Pulling Away From Clinton Nationally, currently a full 19% ahead of her.

For what its worth ......

[afronaut]

Hey Rob, where are you getting your information from? I think it's at least fair that we know where it's coming from.