Big Mac: "I have not observed every speech he has given obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics" Signs of attacking from a weak position: Criticize things you don't know about!

Big Mac: "To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." It worked for Regan, and looks to me each repub candidate has about broken his spine trying to bend over backwards to be the next 'Regan'.

Big Mac: It's not an accident that he has, I think, according to the National Journal, the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate." Of course its not an accident. Its a lie. Check the National Journal's statistics, they don't even come close to portraying Obama as a having the most liberal voting record.

Yeah I read that too and for a sec my heart leaped into my chest when I thought they were talking about the one that just left HRC's campaign. lol.

I wish they'd refer to Hillary as Hillary or HRC. When I see 'Clinton' I think of Bill. I mean he WAS president for 2 terms.

My unbiased view is not that the as is negative, although it could be seen that way, more to the point it is a bad ad since as has been pointed out there have been 18 debates so far, with 2 more scheduled. So it makes Hillary out to be a whiner and a sore loser.

My biased view is that the ad is a laugh coming from someone who won't release her taxes until AFTER the primaries, so she is in no position to be lecturing about a candidate hiding from the electorate.

Up shot is, does Hillary want this so bad, she won't let it go with dignity?

Bingo!

I agree, Huck's job is to make sure the base doesn't stay home in November by keeping them interested.

Wonder if they'll ever realize how hard the RNC uses them? Well, considering the things they do manage believe I doubt they'll realize anytime soon.

With 18 debates so far and 2 more to go, Clinton's ad seemed like whining. Irrational whining at that.

This ad basically writes itself and makes people wonder, "What is HRC thinking?"

How do you equate participating in 18 debates and scheduled for at least 2 more with being afraid to debate?

Yeah but the comment I was referring to accused Obama of being afraid to debate. I noted he'd already participated in 18 debates (with a smaller and smaller group of participants as they progressed) And he's agreed to 2 more debates one on one with HRC. So I was just curious what made someone think he was afraid to debate?

Ya, I know but it feels good to take the wind out of their sails because either they won't respond, or they will respond with their usual irrational ranting and either way it makes them look like the trolls they are.

Or you know what, maybe I'm wrong, and I'll get schooled, that would be cool too, because I hate to be wrong, so if I am, I want to know it.

That doesn't make any sense. If he refused to debate HRC at all, you'd have a case but he's agreeing to debate her twice. Don't you think calling him afraid is uncalled for and only makes you look like a troll that doesn't at all care about the facts?

The way I understand it, traditionally the politician in the lead has less of an incentive to debate. Its an issue of smart strategic thinking. Also I've read that HRC is running short of funds so for her the debates are free advertising, so again why would Obama want to participate at all? Whether you agree with the evaluation that his strategy is smart or not, despite the fact the strategy was followed by HRC herself when she was in the lead over her rival in her second Senate run, I still don't understand why he's being called a 'coward' and 'afraid'.

See, again you claim he is afraid to debate, but you can't back it up. You equate Obama not giving into HRC as being afrain, whereas any neutral observer would equate any participant giving another participant all they ask for as stupidity. It sounds to me more like Clinton supporters are simply angry that Obama refuses to grant their candidate every advantage she asks for.

The real fallacy of the "Ticking Time Bomb", the one that makes the whole argument transparent as a weak justification for the desire to torture, is that the scenario always assumes that we KNOW the suspect has the information we need.

That is just not possible. I'd love for an interviewer to bring this up but it hasn't as far as I know. Cause to me its a huge gaping hole in their reasoning.

Torture Apologist: Well let's say there is a threat of an imminent catastrophic mass casualty attack, and we can only get the information to stop it by torturing this suspect who has the info we need-"

Interviewer: Excuse me, sorry to interrupt, but how would you know that this particular suspect has the info you need to stop the attack?

TA: Hmm? Wha-? Well you see there is this imminent attack, and-"

I: Yes yes, sorry to interrupt again, I was just asking exactly how in this scenario, 'our boys' would KNOW that the person strapped to the board has the information we need to stop the attack?"

TA: [silence]

I: Well?

TA: GET HIM!

I: *glub glub!*