Joe and I are sometimes prone of late to harp on Hillary more than Obama, not that we don't think she deserves it, but still, after watching tonight's debate, I can honestly say that I'd be pleased with either Hillary or Obama as our candidate. It has been years since there's been an election in which I really liked our candidate, let alone liked both of the last two standing. The Republicans are going to have a hard time rallying around any of their candidates, and we have two great ones. Doesn't mean we can't lose this in the end. Folks, we can lose this. And don't ever forget it. It is not going to be easy. They will fight dirty. They'll call Obama a terrorist sympathizer and Hillary, well, we already know what they'll say about Hillary, they've been saying it for 18 years. The Republicans will be hateful no matter who we go ahead with - it's in their nature - but at least we can rest assured that we're going to have a great candidate no matter. And that's a very nice change of pace.
9:51PM: Well, that was good. Two great candidates. One of them must be President next year. Again, the contrast with those GOP knuckleheads from last night could not be more stark. Clinton had trouble with the Iraq question. That's still a problem for her. But, overall, they were both very good.
Twice, twice CNN came back from an ad in the middle of an answer from one of the candidates. Isn't this their business????
9:35PM: Okay, Hillary keeps talking like vote she cast for the Iraq resolution wasn't a vote to go to war. She says she made a reasoned judgment. She, apparently, was the only person who thought that. The Bush administration was very clear that this was an authorization for the use of force, not diplomacy. Ari Fleischer said exactly that shortly after the House vote on October 10, 2002, one day before the Senate vote.
9:33PM: Wolf asked Hillary why she won't say that her Iraq war authorization vote was a mistake. I don't think she's giving a very clear answer here. It's a horrible topic for her, since she doesn't want to say it was a mistake, but I still think Hillary is having a hard time giving a clear, firm answer to this question. Maybe it's just me. I never cared whether she "apologized" for the vote, and I can understand having voted for the resolution, but in retrospect it was clearly a mistake.
9:24PM: Obama gives a very good answer on foreign policy. Clinton thinks this is her strong suit, but every time foreign policy comes up, we get back to her vote on Iraq. She had to use her endorsement from Rep. Waters as a buffer on that. Kinda weak.
8:52PM: It's galling that Wolf is trying to stir up the immigration debate. The worst immigrant bashers on TV are Wolf's colleagues on the Lou Dobbs show.
8:48PM: Wolf seems awfully hot on getting Obama and Clinton to fight. They're not biting.
8:34PM: The contrast between last night's GOP debate and tonight's could not be more stark. This is the best I've seen Obama in a debate. He seems comfortable and confident -- debates have not been his best format.
8:32PM: Obama just took the Republicans on, blaming them for the budget deficit, and blaming McCain for supporting Bush's tax cuts. It's nice to see our guys finally going after the Republicans.
8:27PM: Interesting that both are playing awfully nice tonight. Both gave excellent opening statements, and so far no jabs at each other, at least no obvious ones. Hillary gave a very substantive answer on health care (no surprise), and made clear that she's a woman of substance (not that there was any doubt, but still, her answer showed a breadth of knowledge that is impressive). ---------
It's one on one tonight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The debate is co-hosted by CNN, The Los Angeles Times and the Politico. (I turned on CNN a bit early and it just sucked that I had to see any portion of the immigrant bashing Lou Dobbs show before the debate.)
Wolf is letting us know just how important and historic the debate is. Keep in mind that one of these two Democrats has to be will be President of the United States next year.
Game on....John and I will both be watching and commenting as the debate rolls on.
There are no rules according to Wolf. And, there is a raucous crowd out there in LA tonight.
Great broadcast from Dan Abrams at MSNBC, along with Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, fact-checking the most recent spat between Hillary and Obama. It's actually quite interesting, and reminds me of the old 60 Minutes (or the very first LA Law episodes) where you kind of agree with one side, then you hear the counter-argument and kind of agree with the other. Both come out fairly equal in the segment, so you should all be pleased, or equally annoyed.
Climate change doesn't exist. ExxonMobil tells me so, so it must be true. Two weeks ago I noticed crocuses popping up and my hydrangea's are now starting to bud. I moved my camellia pots to a slightly more shady position on the terrace and they are about ready to bloom, a few weeks ahead of 2007. Horticulturalists in the UK are noticing similar, odd behavior.
Since the 1980s, plant blooming times have come forward at a steady pace, but according to Ms Bell, such a leap forward from year to year is "completely unprecedented".
"During the first five years of the 1980s [daffodils] would have opened on or around 12 February, but by the 2000s the average date they were opening was 27 January. In these 25 years the average date that they open has come forward 16 days, which is just amazing," Ms Bell said.
The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.
The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."
Let's face it folks, no one could have ever imagined that terrorists might want to attack America, and even then, who could imagine that they'd use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons if they could? I mean, come on, it's not Bush's fault. It's not the Republicans' fault. This whole terrorism thing is new, it's not like we've had six years to get ready. And in any case, as I understand it, we're in Iraq to make sure that Osama, who isn't in Iraq and never was, doesn't nuke us in New York. Maybe it's time someone asked General Petraeus if losing New York City to a nuke is a price worth paying for our glorious victory in Iraq.
Oh, and it's not all George Bush's fault. After all, Dick Cheney decimated our military in the early 1990s. Seriously. You never hear the Democrats talk about it. That's because they're blithering idiots who would rather let the Republicans constantly talk about how it was really Bill Clinton who destroyed our military when in fact it was Dick Cheney. But hey, why would a Democrat want to stop the Republicans from feeding the blood libel that we're soft on defense and hate our troops? I mean, if they actually fought back and defended themselves, well then they wouldn't be Democrats would they? Anyway, it's true. And I quote, from Dick Cheney's official Pentagon bio on the Pentagon Web site:
In subsequent years under Cheney the budgets proposed and the final outcomes followed patterns similar to the FY 1990 budget experience. Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office....
Over Cheney's four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.
Joe was right. And Obama was right. Obama sucker-punched the Clintons into making Bill the attack dog and making Bill the issue. And they did. Joe has been saying for a while that he felt something was up, that the Obama people had some polls or something suggesting that tying Hillary to Bill would hurt her campaign. So they did, and it may have. More from ABC:
The Clinton campaign appears to be trying to keep the former president tightly on message while he campaigns across the country for his wife, in the lead up to the crucial Feb. 5 multistate contests....
ABC NEWS asked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., if she personally asked her husband to "tone it down" a little in recent days, and she didn't deny it.
"Well, I'm very proud of his promoting my candidacy, and I'm very happy that he is able to travel as widely as he has been, along with my daughter," Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Little Rock, Ark.
"But this is my campaign, it is about my candidacy," she said....
After the jump, Hillary apologizes for Bill's attacks on the media and says he may have cost her South Carolina...
In an interview with Cynthia McFadden for ABC NEWS' "Nightline," tonight, Clinton apologized for her husband's recent controversial remarks.
"I think whatever he said, which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone. ... If it did give offenses, then I take responsibility, and I'm sorry about that."....
Asked whether her husband contributed to her defeat in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton told the New York Daily News' editorial board, "It may have," she said.
This is my campaign? That's never good. Does McCain need to remind us that his wife (I'm sorry, his SECOND wife, not his first wife whom he allegedly cheated on and left after she had a horrible accident) isn't the one running for president?
This is about as big a backing away from her husband as Hillary could do. Apologizing for his comments and suggesting that he may have cost her South Carolina? Clearly the Clinton campaign feels that the perception of Bill as the bad guy is hurting them. I just talked to Joe about this and he made a good point. People (that would include me) have worried whether Obama doesn't know how to fight back, whether he's naive about political hardball. His handling of "the Bill thing" suggests otherwise.
McCain is loathesome. And, it's not just fellow Republicans who despise him. But, if the hard core GOPers want to hate their front runner, who are we to stop them:
But Sen. McCain still confronts a problem both in the remainder of the nomination race, and, if he wins, in the fall: He is simply loathed by many fellow Republicans, often for the very bipartisanship and maverick streak that attracts independents. His biggest, and perhaps final, test comes Tuesday, when 21 states hold contests -- most of them open only to Republican voters.
"So it is over. Finished. In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate," conservative author and talk-radio personality Michael Graham said on a conservative blog, reacting to Sen. McCain's third primary victory, two days ago in Florida.
The right wingers have reason to loathe McCain. They know enough not to trust him. This matters because it is the hard core base that does the work at election time. McCain is not their guy. GOPers are good at imposing discipline on their minions. But, the minions have spent a lot of time and energy hating McCain. More after the break.
Last year, back when McCain was the initial GOP front runner Vanity Fair profiled him. Besides delving into McCain's notorious temper, the article made it clear that McCain isn't quite the straight talker he purports to be. On the social issues near and dear to the hearts of the right wingers, McCain is a pretender:
"Yes, he's a social conservative, but his heart isn't in this stuff," one former aide told me, referring to McCain's instinctual unwillingness to impose on others his personal views about issues such as religion, sexuality, and abortion. "But he has to pretend [that it is], and he's not a good enough actor to pull it off. He just can't fake it well enough."
Right wing News Max, a publication to which we would usually never link, has written several blistering pieces on McCain. It's worth a look just to see how deep the hatred is. An August 2006 article about McCain's notorious temper even pondered if McCain was "healthy enough to serve?" No love there.
He raised more in January than his previous record, which was over a three-month period, not one single month.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $32 million in the single month of January, matching his best three-month period last year, aides said Thursday.
The money positions Obama for the sweeping Feb. 5 primary contests, when 22 states will be in play for the Democratic nomination. Aides also announced that with their money they can now advertise in states beyond the Super Tuesday contest next week.
It's now a two-person race. Hillary and Obama are both going to need as much money as they can get over the next week, and probably month (should Super Tuesday not seal the deal). You can make a monetary contribution to either of them, or both of them, safely and securely, via our ActBlue page here.
NOTE FROM JOHN: Chris posted this in the wee hours of the morning (God bless his Parisian soul), but this story is far too important to let slip away unread. Folks, this is post-Taliban Afghanistan. This is the war that we supposedly won - you remember, the one that we pretty much quit in order to invade Iraq. This story is horrifying. This is not a democracy, and people like this are not going to be our friends. ___________
Afghanistan is sentencing a journalist to death because he downloaded and distributed a report on women's rights. Is this the government that we're propping up with our soldiers and tax dollars? I understand that different cultures have different views but this is so incredibly against everything we stand for as a country. Is this really the kind of government we want to support?
A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country's rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after "liberation" and under the democratic rule of the West's ally Hamid Karzai.
The fate of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has led to domestic and international protests, and deepening concern about erosion of civil liberties in Afghanistan. He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.
Because what we need surrounding 9/11 is more reason to believe there was a conspiracy. Seriously, the Commission has already done a lot to undermine its credibility - including Kean being involved with that awful rewriting of 9/11 history from ABC, and Hamilton refusing to say boo about it - to the weird deception from the Pentagon and the FAA, both of which tried to deceive the commission. And now we learn that the chief of the Commission is alleged to have been secretly talking to Karl Rove and had his own massive conflicts of interest. More from ABC and the blogger who got the scoop.
It's a good thing Republicans are fighting so hard for rebates for families making up to $300,000 in order to accept a few million dollars worth of unemployment benefits. They really are a shameless bunch and prove once again that they don't have an ounce of compassion in their bones. If only regular Americans had the benefits of members of Congress but they don't. Now the unemployed have to figure out how to get by thanks to the economic destruction that the GOP left in their wake.
With all of the news coming out on the Bush/GOP economy, it's no wonder famed investor Jim Rogers is predicting this recession could be worse than others.
"Conceivably we could have just had recession, hard times, sliding dollar, inflation, etc., but I'm afraid it's going to be much worse," he says. "Bernanke is printing huge amounts of money. He's out of control and the Fed is out of control. We are probably going to have one of the worst recessions we've had since the Second World War. It's not a good scene."
Rogers looks at the Fed's willingness to add liquidity to an already inflationary environment and sees the history of the 1970s repeating itself. Does that mean stagflation? "It is a real danger and, in fact, a probability."
Five days til Super Tuesday. Painful GOP debate last night. Mitt didn't do so well. He really looked rattled. McCain's a smirker. Big time smirker. A Bush-like smirker. But the punditry loves, loves, loves McCain so that's okay. It's part of his charm, we'll surely learn.
And, then there is the big Democratic debate tonight. The first one-on-one event between the Democratic front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- one of those two will be our next President.
Who needs an energy plan when Shell and Exxon already have one for us? We need more government by special interests, for special interests. Big Oil will continue to give lip service to alternative energies and place pretty flowers on their adverts but they will never, ever make a serious move beyond oil. Shell just posted the largest profit ever in the UK to the tune of $27.6 billion for 2007. How'd it work for you?
Instead of spending trillions to make a mess of the Middle East, isn't it time we spend some of that on building a long term energy plan? The GOP has no faith in the American ability to create something new and better but that should not stop others from moving down that path. Instead of giving tax breaks and free drilling rights to Big Oil, let's use that money to help launch the energy programs of the future. Some of the new ideas may not work and others will but anyone who doesn't believe in such possibilities really needs to step aside.
No wonder the US markets were flat yesterday despite another half point cut by Bernanke. The folks who helped prop up the subprime loans are now being scorched themselves. Reagan's trickle down may have never worked but in this case, it's working. The big question is where is this going and who will be next? Even with countless financial wizards and number crunchers, Wall Street has no idea. That's why they make the big bucks and dictate policy, including the Fed.
Like other bond insurers, FGIC initially focused on municipal bond deals but ventured into riskier debt securities to boost returns. Massive defaults on U.S. subprime mortgages battered the credit quality of these products, increasing the capital bond insurers needed for an ``AAA'' rating.
Losing a Triple A rating could be devastating for the bond insurers, preventing them from drumming up new clients -- and possibly forcing them out of business.
Ambac has already received a downgrade from rating agency Fitch, but has so far been spared by Standard & Poor's and Moody's. MBIA hasn't been downgraded.
As Krugman notes, even with the surge "working" more people than ever think Iraq was a waste. I think McCain's whole strategy is fatally flawed if he thinks constantly talking about Iraq is going to save him.
That's because Republicans are the "fiscal conservatives" I suppose, whatever that's supposed to mean. Democrats need to learn how to shove this right back in the face of Republicans because the spending never seems to end with the GOP despite their big talk. Republican Senator Isakson from Georgia, who comes from the real estate business, wants to add even more tax credits for home buyers. Sounds great if you want to keep the price of housing inflated well above where it ought to be. Is he paying attention to the problems faced by the country or just his own special interests?
Also in the Senate, Democrats are offering rebates for the wealthiest Americans so that Grassley and other "fiscal conservatives" in the GOP will accept a few million for unemployment benefits. Can you imagine, Republicans holding out benefits for the unemployment casualties of their own economic failures just so the richest Americans can get a few extra dollars? As if they haven't been rewarded enough in recent years. This is repulsive and Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves. Democrats who fail to make this an issue at election time also ought to be ashamed of themselves. If the tables were turned, you know how the Republicans would react.
Ugh. Another GOP debate. This one hosted by CNN, the Politico and the Los Angeles Times. There are no rules tonight according to Anderson Cooper. John and I will be liveblogging.
AC's first question is are we better off than four years ago? Mitt wouldn't answer for the nation, just for Massachusetts. But then seemed to criticize the state of the nation under Bush.
McCain thinks we are better off. But gave a litany of problems...when AC challenged him, he said we're better off over all. Then he went back to the litany of problems. The rest of the liveblog is after the break. Once again, this was brutally painful to watch.
8:08 PM: Huck doesn't think we are better off. He blamed Bush -- and Congress (Huck does know the GOP controlled Congress for most of the past eight years, right?) It's not better and it's not going to get better without new leadership in DC.
8:09 PM: Ron Paul says we're not better off, too. He also blamed Bush and Congress (and he's in Congress). Then he went off in that Ron Paul way of his. Talking about empires, etc...the standard of living is going down. Monetary policy, etc.
8:10 PM: Mitt gets a question about whether McCain is indeed a liberal as Mitt has charged recently. Mitt goes off on McCain's record: ANWR, campaign finance, McCain/Kennedy on immigration. McCain/Lieberman on energy. "Those views are outside the mainstream of Republican conservative thought." Slams McCain for the NY Times endorsement.
McCain notes he got the endorsement of Mitt's hometown papers who know him so well. McCain defended himself then lit into Mitt's record of raising taxes. The takeaway is that Mitt and McCain really don't like each other. It's palpable.
8:17 PM: Huck says Rush isn't infallible.
I just realized that the backdrop is Air Force One. Maybe they just should be sitting in Reagan's little office on that plane and pretend they are him.
8:25 PM: McCain admits that global warming exists -- and he chose Arnold over Bush. That surely violates GOP/right wing orthodoxy.
8:31 PM: Huck says we're borrowing the $150 billion stimulus package from China...and we've ignored our infrastructure, which is where we should be investing. Huck keeps making digs at Bush.
Romney used the Big Dig in Boston, which he oversaw, as an example of an infrastructure project. Then he proceeded to mock the Big Dig (which he oversaw) for being something of a failure. Mitt seems really rattled tonight.
8:37 PM: McCain: I was part of the Reagan Revolution. Republicans are out of control on spending now. I was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, too. Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!
8:39 PM: Mitt says Reagan would have wanted the Bush tax cuts. He is trying to take that Reagan mantle tonight. Don't be surprised if he ends up in Reagan's model Oval Office at the library tonight.
8:41 PM: On immigration, Mitt explains how he is going to deport illegal immigrants within 90 days. NO AMNESTY. Mitt wants everyone to know he hates immigrants more than the other Republicans. NO AMNESTY. NO SPECIAL DEAL. That's offensive says Mitt.
8:49 PM: AC is too nervous to touch Reagan's diary as he asks Huck if Sandra Day O'Connor was the right choice for Supreme Court. Huck won't diss Reagan...but he is pro-life and wants everyone to know. Ron Paul wouldn't have appointed her. McCain won't diss Sandra, won't second guess Reagan. McCain wants Justices like Roberts and Alito. Romney wants Justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.
And a break, phew. This is painful. Okay, all GOP debates are painful. I just can't envision any of these clowns being President.
8:56 PM: Citing Peggy Noonan, AC asks Mitt if the Republican Party is better off than it was eight years ago. Mitt says No. But, it's not Bush's fault. It's Washington's fault. Huh? Republicans have run Washington for most of the Bush term. Then Mitt invoked Reagan.
9:00 PM: Mitt is hopping mad at McCain for lying about his position on Iraq. He didn't quite say McCain was lying but referred to others who said McCain was lying. McCain is sitting there smirking as Mitt goes on and on. Mitt really hates McCain -- and Reagan would've thought it was reprehensible.
9:02 PM: McCain goes right back at Mitt. Mocks him for saying he was a governor while McCain was trying to single-handedly trying to save the world.
These two are going at it. Mitt asks McCain: How is it that your the expert on my position?
They're just talking over each other. It's great. McCain is quite smug and smirky.
Mitt is quite upset that McCain sprung this on him right before the Florida primary. He seems to think McCain violated some kind of rule or protocol. It's old-style Washington politics according to Mitt.
9:09 PM: McCain to Mitt: You started it with all those millions in negative ads against the Huck and me. You've been spending a lot of your money on negative ads. Spend it all, says McCain.
9:11 PM: Ron Paul to Mitt & McCain: You agree on Iraq...how many men are you willing to let die.
9:18 PM: McCain is asked what makes him a better leader on the economy then Mitt. McCain says I'm a leader, that's how.
9:20 PM: Mitt is asked if McCain is a better leader on the econony. "NO." I was a governor. I'm an executive not a legislator who sits on committees. Mitt: I'm a LEADER, LEADER, LEADER -- so, basically, McCain hasn't done any real work. McCain sits on committees.
9:24 PM: Would Mitt be an okay commander-in-chief? McCain: I'm sure Mitt was a good manager -- bought and sold companies where some people lost jobs. But can't have on the job training. So, we can infer that McCain doesn't think Mitt would be a good commander. These guys really, really don't like each other. And, McCain is smirking a lot.
Last question: Would Ronald Reagan support you? Duh, like they're going to say No. Mitt and McCain try to explain why Reagan would support them over the each other.
It's over. And, it was awful. Again, I can't see any of these guys as President.
I have a slightly different take on Obama's speech today than John. First, today, with Edwards dropping out, the campaign is on a completely different playing field. It's one-on-one between Obama and Clinton. For political geeks, it doesn't get much better than this current contest. We are watching two masters of the game engage.
Two things are interesting to me: First, Obama keeps injecting Bill Clinton into the discussion. He did that again today in Denver. Last week, after the South Carolina debate, the punditry were discussing how Hillary was playing for February 5th while Obama was trying to win South Carolina. But, Obama kept making a point of discussing both Clintons, not just Hillary. The media kept wondering if Bill got under Obama's skin. I wonder if it wasn't really the other way around. Obama drew Bill into the campaign -- and Bill acted like Bill does. Only problem is that Bill isn't the candidate. Makes one wonder if the Obama campaign had research showing that the more Bill is the issue, the less support there is for Hillary. She loses the patina of a historic candidacy when the campaign isn't about her. Obama did get the Clinton campaign off its message. Today, she even had to tell us "This is my campaign, it is about my candidacy." (Anyone else hear "I'm relevant"?) That's not something a campaign should be telling us six days before Super Tuesday.
More after the jump...
Second, Obama is using Hillary's language -- the very language she used against him. He kept talking about "Day One." That was a trademark term of Hillary's stump speech. Obama has turned it on her, which is actually somewhat masterful. That makes it hard for the Clinton team to start whining about what Obama is saying. He is re-defining one of Clinton's main talking points. He also talked about Clinton's votes on Iraq and Iran -- and some of the statements she's made during the campaign. But that's fair game according to Clinton. At the South Carolina debate, Clinton said, "I believe your record and what you say should matter." So, it matters.
I don't see what Obama did as all that negative. To me, he went on the offense -- trying to throw the Clinton campaign off their game. We keep hearing that Obama needs to show Democrats that he can play to win, that he can take on the Republican machine in the general election. I think that's what he's showing us. I really don't see it as negative and mean or "blistering." I mean come on, if Barack wanted to get ugly about the 90s, there is plenty to throw out there. But that's not what the Obama did. (And let's not forget, it's the Clinton campaign, and their surrogates, that keeps dragging up dirt about Obama's youthful indiscretions, not the other way around.)
Anyway, that's my take. The dynamics of the campaign changed dramatically today when John Edwards dropped out. Seems like Obama got out in front of it all today.
