Debates are on.

OHHHHHH..... SIXTEEN TONS AND DEEPER IN DEBT......

Biden had the best line--"Every sentence of Rudy Giuliani's has a noun, a verb, and 9/11."

And they finally scored some points on Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation. Though it occurred to me that in a saner world, she'd be a well above average Republican candidate.

I'm starting to lose a little of my enthusiasm for Obama. Edwards was great tonight, and I increasingly like Dodd; right now I think he's my first choice, though when the primary comes I'll vote for whoever has the best chance at Being Not-Hillary.

Richardson amazes me in that his "resume" really is so good, and as a candidate he's so awful. Like Biden, he'd probably be a good president, but there's no way he'll get the chance.

Half-cocked prediction: if Edwards starts running hard against the "spineless Democratic Congress," he wins Iowa and could make a race of it.

I have to admit Hillary really appeals to me in debates. She seems reasonable and eager to implement nuanced solutions rather than big rhetorical broadswords.

I only saw about a half hour or so, and I did catch the Biden line and you KNEW he wanted to say it for a while, but he delivered it a lot better than Romney ever could.

I honestly think that all the shots at Clinton are going to make her an empathetic candidate. Women backers probably hate it as well as some democrats who feel that the poor girl is getting picked on. Obama and Edwards are trying to win the democratic candidacy and Hillary is trying to win the Presidentcy. She wins on that front, easily.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again, Richardson is COMPLETELY angling to be Clinton's running mate. That is the only reason he is still in this race. He continually says, "I don't agree with her, but we are taking too many personal shots at her." I don't know if that is smart or swarmy.

Edwards appears to have to blink for every word he says.

As much as I like Chris Dodd's politics, he seems like such a me me me kinda guy. Check out my website, go onto my myspace, read my blog! Seems fairly desperate. Though, I am not sure what other chance he really has.

Regarding Biden. I think he is there just to make his "people" look good. I feel like he is the guy who is going to make cracks against the republicans and kinda draw the dems off of one another. I don't think that he thinks he can win, but I do think he thinks he can help the democrats win by staying in the race.

The other thing I noticed was when both Obama and Edwards said that the Republicans go after Clinton because she is an easy target and they are comfortable with that. What horsecrap. They are more afraid of Clinton than anyone. They are trying to kill her before she gets the nominee. I know that they have to make it seem that way, but it couldn't be any more true.

I honestly think that Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

dajafi wrote:Biden had the best line--"Every sentence of Rudy Giuliani's has a noun, a verb, and 9/11."

Hotline Quote of the Day today:

"I-- Katie Levinson -- have a better chance of becoming president than he does."
-- Giuliani comm. dir. Katie Levinson, on Joe Biden, release, 10/30.

How is that a good line? It's pretty erroneous; she's not even running!

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Biden had the best line--"Every sentence of Rudy Giuliani's has a noun, a verb, and 9/11."

Hotline Quote of the Day today:

"I-- Katie Levinson -- have a better chance of becoming president than he does."
-- Giuliani comm. dir. Katie Levinson, on Joe Biden, release, 10/30.

Biden > Guiliani

Guliani was a so-so mayor who took credit for a lot of national trends which occurred in big cities

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Biden had the best line--"Every sentence of Rudy Giuliani's has a noun, a verb, and 9/11."

Hotline Quote of the Day today:

"I-- Katie Levinson -- have a better chance of becoming president than he does."
-- Giuliani comm. dir. Katie Levinson, on Joe Biden, release, 10/30.

Biden > Guiliani

Guliani was a so-so mayor who took credit for a lot of national trends which occurred in big cities

The totality of what happened in the '90s was such that Giuliani's faults--his authoritarianism, buffoonery, terrible judgment and toleration of corruption and incompetence so long as the corrupt and inept kissed his ass--weren't fatal to his mayoralty. The economic expansion and helpful federal policies--I was thrilled to see Biden mention the 1994 Crime Bill--made it fairly hard for local officials to mess up.

It also didn't hurt him that NYC's Democrats were--and are--a bunch of idiots, as politically maladroit as they are personally obnoxious (Mark Green, Ruth Messinger) or corrupt (the borough bosses).

Still, I'd probably agree with "so-so" mayor rather than "total trainwreck". Those structural factors helped, and he occasionally did put into place skilled people (his first two police chiefs, a few others). He also was fairly effective--or maybe his mistress was--at marketing the city.

As president, he'd pretty much combine Bush's aggressively uninformed and ideological policy views with Nixon's personal viciousness, megalomania and thirst for the blood of his real and perceived political enemies.

I'm not going to get into a long, drawn out argument because you used the word maladroit, which means I'm out of my depth.

I just liked the retort, which I think would actually be true but for the chance that someone might pick the long winded senior senator to be their running mate, win the election, and, after assuming office, die, allowing Joe to delight us with Neil Kinnock's legendary prose from the Oval Office.

Katie Levinson is highly unlikely to be elected president in her own right, but she's presumably got more years ahead of her to get it done.

If this was about either Hillary or Romney, I think I would die of laughter:

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

jerseyhoya wrote:If this was about either Hillary or Romney, I think I would die of laughter:

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

Well, Thompson's a well-known horndog, as is Giuliani. Dodd apparently was into some kinky stuff in his single days. McCain cheated on wife #1 at least. And there are all kinds of rumors about Hillary over the years--though, much as I can't stand Hillary, I've never thought they were particularly credible. And the piece says it's not Edwards.

Romney and Obama are the only serious contenders for whom a sex scandal would be all that surprising. I kind of think that both guys are too personally disciplined to be susceptible to that temptation (as was/is the case with Bush), but who knows.

There are so many substantive reasons to oppose most of them that this is probably just more noise.

I got the feeling watching the debate that Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were the only two people who knew what the hell they were talking about. All the others, especially Hillary and Osama, appeared to be more like bad actors than the future leader of the free world.

I would vote for Hillary if she's the nominee but Someone please tell me there is hope for the other candidates in the democratic primary. Is there a scenario where a Biden or Dodd can realistically win?

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If this was about either Hillary or Romney, I think I would die of laughter:

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

Well, Thompson's a well-known horndog, as is Giuliani. Dodd apparently was into some kinky stuff in his single days. McCain cheated on wife #1 at least. And there are all kinds of rumors about Hillary over the years--though, much as I can't stand Hillary, I've never thought they were particularly credible. And the piece says it's not Edwards.

Romney and Obama are the only serious contenders for whom a sex scandal would be all that surprising. I kind of think that both guys are too personally disciplined to be susceptible to that temptation (as was/is the case with Bush), but who knows.

There are so many substantive reasons to oppose most of them that this is probably just more noise.

No doubt it's just noise compared to real issues. But if it's about Giuliani, his candidacy is over because any efforts to continue wooing the right will fall on deaf ears and his whole "electability" argument is trashed.

If it turns out to be believable stuff, it would pretty much ruin any candidate's chances of winning the nomination, I would think, except maybe Hillary since she has a pretty decent lead right now so she can take a little hit.

jerseyhoya wrote:If it turns out to be believable stuff, it would pretty much ruin any candidate's chances of winning the nomination, I would think, except maybe Hillary since she has a pretty decent lead right now so she can take a little hit.

I think the "Clinton factor" is such that any new sex-related stuff will knock her out of it. Maybe I'm overstating it since I'm personally sick of the Clintons and their endless Boomer drama and hypocrisy and self-indulgence, but I just can't believe there's much margin for error on personal behavior for Sen. Clinton.

That said, she's such a celebrity and the focus of so much constant, 24/7 attention that I have a lot of trouble believing any sexcapade of hers would have stayed unknown to this point.

jerseyhoya wrote:If this was about either Hillary or Romney, I think I would die of laughter:

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

My guess... Kucinich got "probed" by an ET

But seriously, the "timing" issue leads me to think it may be about a frontrunner, while the "hesitation" has me thinking it's probably nothing more than salacious gossip lacking credibility. Although the combination of "timing" and "hesitation" can also mean it's about either Clinton or Obama, and no one wants to be painted as having a sexist or racist agenda (even if it's just uncredible gossip). Then again, if it were about a high profile dem candidate, Faux News would have gleefully spilled the beans by now.

I think if the rumor is credible and verifiable, regardless of which candidate or party, we would have heard about it by now. The media of this generation is all about being the first to break the news... generating ad revenue is of prime importance.

AP:

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to quell a revolt among U.S. diplomats angry over moves to force foreign service officers to work in Iraq under threat of dismissal.

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Crotty said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

Umm..wonder how many members of the military agree whats going on in Iraq? Maybe if ANYONE doesn't want to go to Iraq then we shouldn't force them! Maybe if the national guard reservists had more of a voice they would make these same kind of statements. and the WHO WILL raise our children if these people are dead line ??? HAHAHA we are sending thousands of kids over there right now to be killed so obviously using the 'children' line may not work when applied to this situation.[/quote]

Colbert rejected for Dem SC ballot

I guess I understand what they were thinking here, but since I believe the system *is* a joke and the best way to show that would be run favorite son/daughter comedian candidates in every state, I'm still bummed about it.

dajafi wrote:Colbert rejected for Dem SC ballot

I guess I understand what they were thinking here, but since I believe the system *is* a joke and the best way to show that would be run favorite son/daughter comedian candidates in every state, I'm still bummed about it.

If given the opportunity, I would vote for Colbert. My vote doesn't matter since DC will vote 85% Dem no matter what, but I was really looking forward to the havoc this would cause with the FEC and FCC. Plus he's hilarious. His new book is great on the top of the toilet.

jerseyhoya wrote:If this was about either Hillary or Romney, I think I would die of laughter:

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

Oooh, the intrigue

Several commenters on Rosenbaum's article strongly believe that Hillary Clinton will ultimately be revealed as a lesbian, and that the recent GQ story her campaign helped kill by threatening to withhold a Bill Clinton interview may have gone into some shocking details into her sex life.Rumors of a close Hillary relationship with one of her top aides Huma Abedin, shown above, have long been swirling. Hillary has long denied being a lesbian.

Jon said:

A few friends of mine belong to the media elite and they tell me that the sexual "scandal" involves Bill Clinton cheating on Hilary, with the ethical problems being:

1. Everyone already knows he is a cheater, and;

2. He is not the candidate.

But wait, there's more...

Well, Ron Rosenbaum, the writer who first detailed the existence of the story now seems to be indicating, or at least not denying, that the story may be about an affair Bill Clinton carried on after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

...

A couple of women that Clinton has been closely linked with since his last oral imbroglio are socialite Lisa Belzberg and Canadian politician Belinda Stronach.

WHO CARES

Let's talk about this Colbert travesty