"What better way to celebrate the legacy of Dr. King than to look at this stage, right here tonight."

What a horrid, horrid thing for Hillary to say!

She's absolutely demeaned everything that MLK stood for and insulted Obama at the same time!

How can people support such a divisive and racist woman!

And I bet Bill whispered it to her in an earpiece, because she can't possibly think for herself, being a woman and all!

See her wretched performance in the prior post and judge for yourselves.

cmon John. they're all impressive and formidable figures. whatever your argument with each, there's no denying that.

You think it's bad now...Just wait. The Battling Billaries have just begun to slime

My only question is ..which one are they asking us to vote for again?

I liked Obama coming out & swinging. But I am a fan.

I do think we are lucky to have three great candidates that will kick some Republican butt in November.

Sorry Greg. Trope. She was formidable and impressive alright. But I watched that prior post video, and I don't think I was "impressed" in quite the same way you seem to be, and neither were other Obama supporters I suspect.

Therein lies the problem - the problem of the Clintons - the formidable and impressive danger they both pose to the Democratic Party in 2008

what the heck is the matter with you people? have you forgotten what previous Dem primaries were like? c'mon. get real. this is the best set of choices you've had -- and are likely to have -- in a long time.

john mccutchen .....stay home....don't vote....vote indy....vote Repub. who cares. WE WILL WIN WITHOUT YOU.

This goes for all the Obamaites who will lose and don't want to support the party
and goe home and suck thumbs. Stay home.
We won twice before and with the women vote we will win again and have a workin majority.

john mccutchen: "Therein lies the problem - the problem of the Clintons - the formidable and impressive danger they both pose to the Democratic Party in 2008."

More "axis of evil" talk from Obama supporters, making their claim that they would be a change from the Bush administration's political tactics absolutely hillarious!

Are you really so sure that "we'll be sorry when it's over?" Speak for yourself, pal. I can't WAIT for this primary to be over. The old cliches about the Democratic circular firing squad have never rung so true.

All that said, Prof. Obama needed to show both fire AND cool under fire. He showed both tonight.

Seriously, I'm watching the replay and she really did herself a disjustice by trying to force this "ideas" issue. She was lying and trying to pretend that she wasn't.

It demonstrates that she cannot recognize that she could in fact be wrong.

Anonymous: "What a surprise."

No surprise that Obama supporters, like Bush supporters, keep trying to lie about and rewrite the stupid things their heroes say.

Obama said what he said and there is a record of it that he can't run away from.

". . . repetition of demonstrably false Republican talking points . . ."

Nobody does this better than Obama and his supporters, time and again repeating the same talking points about Clinton that the GOP has.

They ALL lied through their teeth tonight. Hillary came off bad with the attacks. John came off well there. Hillary did well on health care (though I wish Michael Moore would have been given a rebuttal about who her plan actually benefits) Barack came off well on the war. Though Kucinich hasn't a chance, it'd been nice if a real progressive would have been involved in the conversation for a fresh perspective.

I've frequently thought that we'll be happy when it's over. But I predict that we'll actually be sorry about it...

We'll be sorry, all right ... especially the day after the election of Saint John the Good.

TexMod,
all i can say is you need to get your head out of Hillary's butt

It was a wonderful to see the debate, which was indeed historic, and I loved it. Obama is a bit of a windbag and I don't think he knows who he is. I thought Hillary was mean but not entirely dishonest. Edwards did better tonight than he has for a while. They are all gifted, serious people and we ought to be very proud of the Democrats tonight.

Jamois,
i agree with you...tonight was the best debate...all 3 candidates got their shots in....

Kefa wrote on January 21, 2008 10:10 PM:

Smell that Obama toast.

you've posted that in 2 different threads on this site. it wasn't witty or clever once, it's juvenile and borderline offensive twice.

The unfortunate thing is that Hillary Clinton is campaigning less as the possible first woman president than as the second Clinton president.

That's doubly unfortunate, both because that seems to mean the vicious and dishonest politics of 1995-2001 Clinton and because an alternate Hillary campaign--in which she might have stuck to the issues that she knows better than anyone rather than indulged her near-Nixonian penchant for dishonesty and vindictiveness--might have won over many of us who, in this reality, would sooner sit out the election than support someone so totally without decency.

The worst thing about all of this for me might be that after fighting to cover Bill Clinton's ass through his self-inflicted wounds ten years ago, coming to the realization that his opponents, though vile, were at least partly correct in how they characterized him.

Yes, Keith, because when people use the phrase "party of ideas" they almost invariably mean "the party of [bad] ideas."

You're spinning like a washing machine and it ain't working.

The customary intent of such phrasing is to indicate approval, not disapproval, and if Obama meant something different, being the great orator he is, then he should have said what he meant, but like Bush supporters, you have to continually insist that Obama meant something vastly different than what normal grammar and phrasing are taken to mean.

Your butt is so far up Obama's you could be speaking with his tongue.

Lie all you want, but "party of ideas" is a positive concept and no intelligent person would read that as "party of [bad] ideas," particularly in the context it occurred.

But it is just like Obama worshippers, uh supporters, to insist their candidate is a god-like figure who is above reproach and just like any religious orthodoxy, they are perfectly willing to lie for him.

Hillbot:

...can you elaborate for us just what are those formidable and impressive dangers that the Clintons pose to the Democratic Party in 2008, keeping in mind that Bill Clinton was the only Dem to win the presidency, twice, in nearly 3 decades and that during his administration...

blah blah blah.

I think he means this idjit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

The bottom line is that Obama was trying to appeal to Reagan Democrats and Reagan-loving moderate Republicans and he was too clever by half, it bit him in the ass, and then he lied to cover his ass, like any politician does, which doesn't make him bad, but which does show that his claim to be a new kind of politician is crap and his supporters claim he's more honest than the other politicians delusional.

TexModDem:

I didnt spin anything. I just posted the statements. Spinning requires trying to explain or justify away the plain meaning of words.

A good example is your post--trying to impute your explaination of his words in place of the plain meaning of his words. If what you say is true, then why didn't she just quote him accurately? I mean if EVERYONE knows that the "party of ideas" means "good ideas", then there wouldn't be a need to mischaracterize his words.

Keith: "I mean if EVERYONE knows that the "party of ideas" means "good ideas", then there wouldn't be a need to mischaracterize his words."

You are right, and they didn't.

Clinton characterized them exactly right.

Franklyn:

They are capable of breaking out of the race mold. It's driving ratings and in essence driving the narrative. Very unfortunate indeed.

I thought Obama answered a lot of questions about his toughness tonight. It was the first time, that I recall, that he really pivoted very well. And he pwned the second half of the debate--especially on the foreign policy smack down.

We'll see how this plays out in the blogsphere and with the pundits. CNN is doing TERRIBLE analysis. Even if Tweety is nuts, MSNBC has FAR better analysis.

Greg Sargent: "we'll be sorry when its over".

I'll only be sorry if hillary wins.

Obama on Monday: "It is a company of ideas."

Obama on Tuesday: "I meant that 'they are a company of BAD ideas,' but I was trying to appeal to the stockholders at the time and it would have been inconvenient to insert 'bad.'"

One thing to note: Obamaites (call them "neo-progressives" or "naderites") constant harping on how bad the Democratic Congress is has taken it's toll and reduced the Democratic lead from well into the double digits to only 5 percentage points.

Thanks progressives.

In your quest for puritanical political orthodoxy that demands strict adherence to your every whim, you've greatly reduced the chances of Democrats expanding their control of Congress, or even possibly losing it, just like you tanked Gore in 2000.

Yet one more reason to despise the Obama campaign and its supporters, as if their arrogance and self-righteousness and mendacity weren't already enough.

Clinton was really good on the parts just describing policy, I always really like her in those segments. I do not necessarily agree with everything, but she definitely knows and likes her stuff.

Edwards did very nicely and was able to not just participate but steer a bit too. While he was still talking about his main issues, poverty and corporate power, he managed to make it more relevant and foray into other areas too. Previously I have felt that he just gives the same talking point over and over at times regardless of what the topic is (and how many times can you listen to the mill his dad worked at?) He seemed to be much more versatile, more "presidential" in the sense you feel he has interest in foreign policy etc. too. Good showing, I just think too late.

Obama did well. I do not like it when he is stern, but he had to be and he did it appropriately, without a hint of being the "angry candidate," just firm and somber. He is clearly uncomfortable with "zingers" although I must admit I do not count that as a terrible failing. He presented his vision, his approach to policy very clearly. There was a good sense of integrity and straightforwardness as opposed to politics as usual about him again.

The best "moment?" I really appreciated what I feel is exactly right analysis of King by Obama in that last question. That was just awesome and deflated the other two completely for an instant.

I am not certain whether the act of going directly against Bill Clinton does anything for either Obama or Clinton's stature one way or another but I think it may help with the MSM fact-checking Clinton allegations a bit more carefully which should be good for the overall race, concentrating on issues and so on.

Where Clinton loses out to me is that it just seems that she has ironically internalised the Republican idea of necessary political tactics, of 50 + 1, of only victory mattering however you can get there, of muddying any issue so that it becomes about sifting the mud, not about the issue. Unfortunately that was on display tonight too. (Looks like Josh is on the same lines there too over on TPM.)

I think I would view her much more favourably if she got rid of Penn, Wolfson and the rest of the amoral band of electioneers. The coming weeks will be crucial because unlike some, I do not care about The Party. I only care about the leftist agenda.

Wow, Tex. I don't usually get into it with the Hillary apologists, but do you honestly blame the Obama supporters for Congress's low ratings?

How about maybe the fact that they haven't ended the war? Or gotten much significant legislation passed? Or censored Bush in any meaningful way? Or done anything about fuel prices, or the coming/current recession?

Also, if you think Congressional Democrats would be well served by nominating for president Hillary Clinton--who certainly distorts and lies, and frequently votes, like a Republican, but who is perceived in the country at large as the leftiest of the left--I think Sens. McCaskill and Johnson, Gov. Napolitano and pretty much every other red-state Democrat in the country would appreciate a word. Guess they're all "Naderites" too though, right?

What makes you think that you made it to the present but the Clintons did not?

------------------

the tactics and tone of her campaign.

She is presently a sitting US Senator, with more time in the US Senator than her major opponents, what then makes them more qualified to deal with "today's politics, American and global"?

----------------

she's spent 4 more years in the Senate than Obama? 4 less in elected office? wow, big differnce. their experience in terms of American politics is probably about the same. she's spent more time around the White House, while not being involved in shaping or implementing passing policy; he's spent more time as a legislator, while not being involved in the Washington bureaucracy and insider circles.

truth be told, most days i'd still argue that my candidate's experience is more suited for the Presidency in this period in American history, but i'm willing for the sake of compensation to give Hillary equal credit in the experience category. so fine, they are equally experienced in terms of government and governing.

its on every other vital facet, like judgement and approach and vision (in short, the exact qualities you want in a President), that Obama stands a head above.