Have you read this article

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/05/the_labor_vote

about labor and Obama? I'm very pro-labor. But just because a candidate accepts endorsements or money doesn't mean they're pro-labor. Edwards voted against raising the minimum wage twice. So what are we talking about?

When Obama talks about being an agent of change, it's easy to roll your eyes. But it's hard to find proof that he isn't helping the same people that he was helping as a community builder in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago. He's not a corporate shill just for refusing (or not seeking) labor lobbyists. The question is what he's going to do for labor, and I think a lot of union members are finding his promise to create better working conditions and promote a "living wage" for American workers convincing. The way you vote when it counts is really what makes you pro-(or anti) labor.

the mixture of contempt and disbelief that comes over Romney's face every time Huckabee starts talking is priceless.

Also, all those columnists writing about how old fred thompson looks are right. Clearly his aid forgot to wake him up before the debate. I'd far rather be a democrat than a republican when the issue of health care or war comes up. yick. can you imagine trying to pay lip service to what a great job bushie has done in Iraq? or how "the market" is going to fix skyrocketing healthcare costs?

*sigh*

I think this is as addicted as I've been to a presidential race. I just hope after all this, we don't suffer another disappointment. If none of the dems can beat this bunch, we're in worse trouble than I thought.

a fundamental difference between Democrats & Republicans: with 29-38% each of a larger than expected voter turnout in Iowa, Democrats are being considered unviable as candidates after only ONE (small) state caucus....and yet supposedly any of the three top candidates could go down after NH. Meanwhile, Giuliani, who captured 3% of the vote of the same state is still blowing hard at the microphone about 9-11 in the debates...

are the Republican purses really so large that they can string all of their guys through state after state? We've already narrowed our field and I argue against narrowing it too fast. Voters need to be given a choice. I'm afraid by the time I vote (on the west coast) no one will care and no wonder so many people feel locked out of the process. It doesn't help voter turnout if the whole party isn't behind the person who wins.

So I'm frustrated. I think Americans fall prey to what Churchill called "flocculent thinking." With three candidates this close in the polls, I hope people really take the time to consider each candidate and don't get sucked into the chance wind that blows one candidate in front of another.

Cheers.

for saying that electing a woman means electing change, since this is only true, rationally speaking, on a cosmetic level. For example, if Condaleeza Rice were the one in this debate, would Clinton supporters accept that a vote for Condoleeza was a vote for change merely because Condi is a woman? (A more dramatic change because she's a black woman?) Unless Condi were prepared to make "changed" policy decisions, probably not. It is nice that Clinton is a woman, but personal leadership and public policy alone create a candidate's true viability for change.

As a person who respects Clinton but is not a supporter of her in this election campaign, I thought her best moment in the debate was when she said she was "hurt" that people didn't like her. I thought that showed grace and humor. However, I still found her performance to be not personal enough. I thought she came across as repetitive and not persuasive when she talked about her record with a tone of exasperation, forgetting to make an effort to show that she cares (still cares after 35 years) about average voters.

The bossy know-it-all persona may be part of the reason some voters can't connect with her. She had some of the same expressions on her face that Romney (to Huckabee) did when speaking to Edwards and Obama. She seems still to have an annoying sense of entitlement about this election, and it may hurt her except among those who accept this entitlement--I'm not sure a Democratic ticket should be taken as anyone's due.

Just my two cents.