... but I agree with Drew Westen that once somebody low-blows you the gloves should come off. Obama's campaign should start attacking Clinton by pointing out that as a candidate of change she's got the most conservative record and is funded by the most corporate money of the Democrats and that she doesn't represent change so much as restoration of a former presidency.

It's not change, it's the War of the Roses. America doesn't need a father-son of one party trading the presidency with a husband-wife of the other one. America is supposed to a meritocracy but we're going to have three consecutive presidential elections where a leading candidate was a leading candidate because that person had the same name as a former president.

Everyone has known for years that Hillary would be a leading/likely choice for the Democratic choice but why? What is it that sets her apart from say, Joe Biden? Money and name recognition.

It drives me crazy that this isn't an issue in the election.

Chris Mooney at Scienceblogs has been trying to organize a 2008 presidential debate on science and technology, an idea that was inspired in part by the damage this administration has politicized science to the detriment of the country.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=2

We've seen that the press is not going to raise issues pertaining to the functioning of democracy in the debates.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801240006?f=h_latest

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711170002?f=h_top

Through 17 debates this year, roughly 1,500 questions have been asked of the two parties' presidential candidates. But only a small handful of questions have touched on the candidates' views on executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil liberties concerns.

Is it too late to come up with something similar to the ScienceDebate08? Can we come up with a Constitution debate08? Is such a thing possible? It's certainly necessary.

Also, I think it should be suggested/urged to Edwards (and the others to whatever effect it might have) to campaign on the promise of addressing our broken gov't. To promise to restore and repair the damage that has been done to the Constitution. Towards this end, perhaps also promising to appoint the VP head of a task force to come up with ways to bring back Constitutional gov't. Clinton did something similar with Gore (i.e. putting him in charge of a task force to follow up on a campaign promise) and the results were successful reform.

'Listening to this "debate" is enough to make one become a revolutionary.'

I was going to say something to that effect. It's maddening really. We're seeing an admitted (in a round about way) bipartisan effort to perpetuate a constitutional crisis.

You want to roll over and give into every unConstitutional banana republic action of the Bush administration. Fine. But don't god damn tell me we're facing a constitutional crisis and then tell me you're going to defy you base, your civic duty, and your Constitution to promote a "bipartisan spirit" of lawbreaking.

It's like something out of a friggin' Orwell novel. "Partisan" now means that if you are opposed to someone engaging in partisan illegal, immoral, indefensible activity you're the partisan.

I'd rather be partisan for right principles than whatever the hell it is these spineless Democrats are partisan for. They aren't partisan for democracy. Maybe they should change the party name to something more fitting. Roll-overcrats, maybe?

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-says-vote-for-me-im-christian.html

Check the link in the update.

I just read the Atrios link.

I agree that it's wrong to criticize Huckabee but not Obama, but disagree that it's not that big a deal to make this kind of appeal.

This sort of behavior helps to cede the territory to Republicans by legitizing being a member of a religion to get elected. It's creating a de facto religious test, making Article 6 effectively null with rare exceptions.

One might argue this sort of campaigning is a necessary evil, and might even be right, but I tend to be sort of dogmatic about his subject. Drew Westen wrote at length in The Political Brain about how Democrats have been ceding the neural networks on issues like this to Republicans, and how in the long run it plays into their hands, so they would be better off challenging the narrative and creating new networks ... basically, he's saying to reframe the issue.

I'd rather see Obama (or any candidate) challenge the silent bigotry against non-Christians rather than work within the existing frame.

Is that we have a political atmosphere in which presidential candidates are campaigning on being a particular religion.

"The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, however, this process of corruption spread to the law courts and to the army; and, finally, even when the sword became enslaved by the power of gold, the republic was subject to the rule of emperors." - Plutarch (46 - 120 CE)