"I think that what we're looking for is a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today and tomorrow.

If the Bush presidency proved anything, its that you can reinvent yourself without changing direction. Bush the globalist, the big spender, the new New Deal, the ownership society, amnesty for illegals, walking hand in hand down the aisle with Democrats. Perhaps you want to believe that 9/11 reinvented Bush, but he signed off on WTO for China a week after the attack.

Bush may have succeeded at changing tack, if he hadn't insisted he wasn't changing message. He was flipping and flopping so hard we weren't sure we could keep him in the boat. To maintain the deception he hammered Iraq, Iraq was his rock. All around that rock the waters were swirling.

The question for these Democrats, Hillary: If you think continuity is the thing, why not resign right now, and move to Paraguay? For Obama: Those inspirational moments may fool some kids in Iowa, but there are some people in this country who lived through the FIRST great depression. For Edwards: is being the Trail-Lawyer-in-Chief really a good idea. Who's going to be your VP, Spitzer?

The candidate who can change without appearing to change has the best chance this year, because the world one of these people will be in charge of, will not allow for a foolish consistency of judgement.

ABC is only slightly less of a haven than Faux News for the neocon crooks who have been driving this nation to ruin for the last seven years. The first question about nuclear terrorism was beyond absurd...its intent was to have the Democratic candidates endorse the neocon-generated climate of fear that allows thefts of liberty and privacy, continuing military aggression, and unbelievable deficit spending. None of those on the dais objected to the farcical assumption that this was an issue of first importance. Once again, Dennis Kucinich would likely have identified the question as being stupid and manipulative.

Obama won his Senate seat due to the anti-war vote. Anti-war groups campaigned for him and they voted him in. He wouldn't be in the Senate without them.

After winning his seat, he changed his position on the Iraqi war and voted for more $$ and personnel.

He's also against the Endangered Species Act, pro-No Child Left Behind and pro-death penalty.

Obama came across as the strongest candidate in last night's debate? Mr. Shapiro makes this assertion without providing any concrete examples of Obama's superior rhetoric or command of the stage. In my opinion, Edwards took the center stage in that debate because he seems to be the only candidate that is willing to admit that uniting people and bipartisanship must take second stage to challenging corporations and politicians on positions that are harmful to the greater good of the nation. In addition, Edward's co-authorship of the Patient Bill of Rights lends support to his claims that he would seek to reform health care by imposing limits on the insurance industry. Furthermore, Edwards is the best extemporaneous speaker of the four candidates debating last night. Obama, as much as I want to like him, came across to me as dithering and tongue tied when forced to speak on the spot about his positions on the issues addressed last night. Sorry Mr. Shapiro, your claims that Obama prevailed in the debate seem baseless to me.

he was running against Alan Keyes, if his original opponent hadn't had a sleazy sex scandal blow up right before the election, and drop out of the race, it would have been a narrow election, going either way.

While Obama has the momentum coming out of Iowa and will probably win NH I think Edwards won the debate. He was really passionate last night and I think he got the better of both Clinton and Obama. Despite the national media trying to freeze Edwards out of the contest he keeps hanging in there with great performances in the debates and his workhorse campaigning. I wouldn't count out Mr. Edwards for a minute.

By the way, in case you haven't seen the recent Boston Globe article that details how Obama has been stealing and running on Edwards message you might want to check it out. This really needs to get much more coverage by the media because it matters when one campaign steals the message of another and tries to claim it as it's own. Does Obama really have any ideas of his own or are we going to nominate a guy whose only qualification is that he gives great speeches?

Obama borrows from Edwards

Email|Link|Comments (30) By Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor January 5, 2008 01:19 PM

By Sasha Issenberg, Globe Staff

NASHUA, N.H. -- After beating John Edwards in Iowa on Thursday, Barack Obama has decided to join him -- repeatedly poaching his opponent's themes, language, and even jokes.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/obama_borrows_f.html

You can try and spin Obama as some kind of conservative - but that certainly doesn't square with the facts. Obama actually had the 10th highest liberal voting record of 2006 (http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm ) -- well above Hillary.

I can't believe no one is talking about the clip Gibson showed which put an exaggerated negative spin on the problems facing Social Security. After getting those Republican talking points out, Gibson never gave the candidates to discuss ths issue or refute his numbers.

As for Gibson's statement that experts supposedly believe we face a serious risk of a nuclear attack on an American city in the near future, I find it extremely bizarre that no one is talking about this statement, either. Was he accurate? If so, that should be about the only thing candidates discuss during the election.

Obama has a water carrier at salon.

...only makes one look old and in the way. Whatever happened over the past 35 years has already happened, it's been done for better or worse, and we cannot unring that bell. At the same time, I do the math, and what exactly was Ms. Clinton doing 35 years ago? Finishing grad school? Starting her law career? At best a civic activist maybe? What kind of experience are we talking about exactly? I'm more interested in what the experience of the next 35 years is going to be like on the planet, and if it's going to be built on the old and rotting platform of politics-as-usual and MIC ties and talking points and all the things which already play like an endless loop in our collective head, then why even bother?

Right after the "donnybrook" (which word doesn't even come close to applying to last night's debate except maybe as a sarcasm) I watched the movie "V For Vendetta" while waiting for the calls to start coming in from the SoCal office. "Never underestimate the power of words", "Hope is of far greater value than fear to a free people", and "Ideas are bulletproof" all struck me like whiplash from the "donnybrook" just ended.

It is, indeed, time to "Tear This Building Down." We don't get to start over by doing the same stuff we were doing for the past 35 years. It is precisely that which got us here, to this point right now, where we are lying in the bottom of the barrel because, well, that's as far down as down goes -- I hope.

Barack Obama, by simply being positive, and John Edwards, by his recognition he has nothing to lose, have set the stage for a sea change in American politics.

"What's wrong with experience?" whines Bill Richardson. Everything, if it's all you've got. It is history, and history is what's already happened, experience is nothing but war stories.

War stories.