THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE, WHO WON AND WHY?

And while I don't want to take over the conversation here, I wanted to state that something was missing from the debate aside from discussing the climate crisis more urgently which truly disappoints and angers me... but also, no discussion took place about the executive powers Bush has taken for himself at the expense of our civll liberties. No discussion about rescinding the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act that took away habeus corpus... No discussion of the Homegrown Terrorist Bill that seeks to label anyone that dares to speak against this government a terrorist. No discussion regarding any one of these candidates promising that if elected they will reverse this executive power to restore the civil liberties and constitutional rights stepped on by the Bush regime. And it needs to be said.

CosmoPlavix: LOVE your analogy.

Oh Boy, let's quote the senile President. Why don't they leave the poor man alone. George HW Bush was running that show.

Oh boy Gooliani - well at least it's a switch from a noun, a verb and 9/11! I haven't seen it yet but they're playing snippets of both debates on CNN, I'll try and catch it. Actually, today is the first time I've seen them actually giving Edwards equal air time.

On the Republican side it was funny to listen to Guliani's new mantra... "Ronald Reagan"

Funny and interesting analogy CosmoPlavix!

JanforGore "I'm sorry but there is something about him that does not seem genuine to me." Me too, I don't know what it is, but it's there.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/12286/27650/142/431084

The Corporate Media Blackout of John Edwards Gets Worse

The people of NH need to understand why this is and just why the corporate media is really giving Obama so much time with Hillary Clinton.

Yes, Chique, and while I know Obama has a lot of support, I'm sorry but there is something about him that does not seem genuine to me. Something too good to be true usually is. If I am proven wrong, so be it. And I'm sorry again, but expecting to win just because you are a woman or black is playing a card and imo that is just as unfair as anyone else using the race or gender card to disparage anyone. Race or gender alone does not constitute change intrinsicly, but I think that too has been used by the MSM as well to marginalize Edwards as if he is not now exciting enough while ignoring his important message about povery in this country that is effecting Americans of all races and genders..

Yes Jan, and wasn't Obama absent for many votes due to being too busy campaigning? He's a good man but Edwards has the maturity and know how to effectuate "change" (sorry Jackstowne!) The Iowa polls were wrong let's hope they're wrong again and New Hampshire knows the difference.

I agree Jackstowne - - -Obama promises hope and puts fire into his speeches - Edwards gives it substance and teeth. The more the two are covered equally the more we may see a change in perception. And the "assumptions" are media driven.

And MM is also right - nothing wrong with a woman president, just not this one. If we want to reverse the damage done to our country over the past 7+ years is just isn't going to happen with Hillary's status quo positions.

Everyone is talking about Obama being a candidate of "change." If so, where is all his money coming from to keep him going? I totally agree with John Edwards that if you claim to be a candidate for "change," then you should take no corporate or PAC money. And of course for this statement and the other statements he made right on target last night about special interests that I believe won the debate for him he is being marginalized. I do see a bit of Bobby Kennedy in his message. Others criticize Mr. Edwards and claim that such a "populist" message is unnecessary in this campaign. Make no mistake about it then, the same interests some candidates claim they want to fight they still take money from. How does that make them credible? I will continue to support John Edwards who stands up for the middle class, stands up for ending the war and more inportantly crafting a new foreign policy that includes getting nuclear weapons out of this world totally, and stands up for the environment ( even though he wasn't allowed to announce his plan last night) more than the others there including Obama who is from Illinois and supported liquid coal ( wonder why he never mentions that,) Hillary Clinton who thinks climate change is just something you weatherize your homes to fight, and Bill Richardson who said Al Gore's idea of a carbon tax is wrong. Does he even know what it is? He didn't sound like he did. All in all, I see this as a corporate candidate of the DLC going up against another corporate candidate trying to make believe he isn't one, and a man who cares about the middle class being marginalized yet again because he dared to go on a debate sponsored by one of those companies and tell the NH crowd the truth about them. I will truly be sad to see him lose in NH should that happen, because the small bit of hope I did have will lead me to not support anyone and just hold my nose again in November. So I hope NH keeps the hope alive, otherwise the real dictators of our policy will elect a president who will continue this war, and that will do nothing to bring "change."

Obama won the debate with Edwards having done the work for him. Clinton is done for. She should bow out before Tsunami Tuesday.

We need to concentrate more on scrutinizing the record, rhetoric, and policies of Obama--the assumed nominee and likely president. Talk is cheap.

Oh, and for the love of God, enough with the word "change."

I think we ought to wait to have a woman President until we have a better choice.

the headline from the article: "Obama and Edwards Tag-Team Clinton"

poor choice in phrasing yo. i bet bill wasn't pleased. haha.

(And she almost shouted: "I think that having a first woman president is a huge change.")
Really? What if that woman was Laura Bush? Would that be that much change?