I'm back to watching the post-debate coverage now and I'm starting to believe that Obama's strategy is based on the following analogy:

Hillary Clinton (08) : Howard Dean (04) :: John Edwards (08) : Dick Gephardt (04)

This isn't an idealogical analogy...I just think that Obama's hoping to see more skirmishes between Edwards and Clinton, so they can knock each other out.

6/3/2007 10:33:25 PM

Quote :

"Well I think Edwards got more face time than a lot of them, and it probably helped him out. "

Chris Dodd's website was doing a real time update of talking time.
Obama got 16:00
Clinton got 14:26
Wolf Blitzer got 13:24
Edwards got 11:42

http://www.chrisdodd.com/node/1377

6/3/2007 10:53:20 PM

Biden made the most of his time

6/3/2007 11:19:56 PM

Biden knows he's behind, so he was swinging for the fences

I wish everyone was as serious as he was about Darfur

6/3/2007 11:24:45 PM

Quote :

"Biden knows he's behind,"

who's this Biden fella you keep talking about?

6/4/2007 12:31:42 AM

I'd just like to see Ron Paul and Mike Gravel go at it, just for the hell of it. I thought Obama, Edwards, and Biden were the top 3 tonight, though Hillary did ok. Richardson sucked; if he has any more time left, he'll still be the governor of New Mexico.

The Edwards remark on what rich is cracked me up. I guess some of us are set to watch the Repubs debate Tuesday.

6/4/2007 12:45:35 AM

i'm looking forward to the repub debate

6/4/2007 4:06:14 AM

Crooden:

Quote :

"people keep mentioning that pairing, in that order. perhaps i'm the only one, but i'd find an obama/edwards ticket more attractive"

You're not the only one who likes that pairing in that order better.

http://ncst.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2223439527

[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 6:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2007 6:49:03 AM

If I were going to vote in the Democratic primary, I think I'd vote for Biden.

If he were out, I'd vote for Kucinich or Gravel just to be ornery.

How are the NC primary rules, anyone? I'm a registered independent but I'd like to vote in one of the two primaries.

6/4/2007 10:00:02 AM

i dont think you can vote in any primaries (except for someone 'independent')

ill vote for anyone but clinton...

6/4/2007 10:14:37 AM

I was a registered independent and had to change affiliations 4 years ago to vote in the dem. primary.

[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 10:23 AM. Reason : 21]

6/4/2007 10:22:52 AM

Quote :

"Chris Dodd's website was doing a real time update of talking time. Obama got 16:00 Clinton got 14:26 Wolf Blitzer got 13:24 Edwards got 11:42"

i'd be interested to see what the actual camera time was for each candidate. it seemed like they used that obama-edwards-clinton shot half the time.

6/4/2007 2:08:29 PM

Do I have to officially change my registration with the state or do I just have to sign a piece of paper at the precinct that I will vote for such-and-such candidate in November?

I personally think it sucks that parties have closed primaries for only their party members and yet the state pays for it still. If a party wants their primary closed, they should privately fund it.

6/4/2007 3:58:51 PM

if you're an NC resident, it doesn't matter anyways, the candidates are decided by the time our primary rolls around anyway

6/4/2007 4:03:03 PM

^

Quote :

"S168, filed 13 February 2007, would move the May Presidential Primary to the first Tuesday in February (5 February 2008)."

It's not passed yet, but it's out there.

[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2007 5:00:19 PM

That bill didn't make the cross-over, I don't believe, so it's dead for the session.

6/4/2007 5:01:36 PM

^^,^and all the early states have moved theirs earlier as well.


[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : or are working to]

6/4/2007 5:01:48 PM

Had the bill passed, North Carolina's primary would've been part of "Tsunami Tuesday"--the same day as New York and California...still not ahead of Iowa, Nevada (Dems), New Hampshire and South Carolina.

[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 5:20 PM. Reason : clarify]

6/4/2007 5:19:40 PM

The democratic debates last night brought up gays in the military. Here's a short clip of it just that section. The argument against it is usually "the military doesn't know how to deal well with change" but they've done racial integration in the past, I think they could handle this (just as the British, and French, & many other major powers that allow gays in the military have... the British even actively recruit gays by targeting gay rallies, just as they target high schools and other groups that could be large gathering of potential servicemen & women). They also pointed out keeping gays when they needed troops, kicking them out when they didnt need troops as badly, and the whole kicking out arabic speakers thing too.

The first Clinton put it in place, the next Clinton says it was transitional and its time to move on. Others oppose it outright. Will any of these candidates take out what Bill put in place?

6/4/2007 7:55:04 PM

Edwards looked like a good leader at one point where he pointed out how the other main 2 were quiet in the time leading up a vote on a funding bill for the war without time tables.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/democrats.dilemma/index.html

From that article:

Quote :

" "Dems in tough spot with war funding bill WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats in Congress face a tough decision on a bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that does not include a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Vote "yes," and they are certain to face the wrath of anti-war forces in their political base. Vote "no," and they may further delay funding for military operations, in turn exposing themselves to the charge that they don't support the troops."

Quote :

" At a press conference on an immigration bill, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York deflected a question about how she would vote when the Iraq funding bill comes to the floor Thursday, saying the query was off subject. As she left the event, she again declined to answer, saying she had not seen the final version of the bill. Reminded that the bill would not include timetables, she responded with some frustration, "When I have something to say, I'll say it, gentlemen." "

Quote :

" Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois had a similar response, telling reporters that he hadn't "seen a final product" and didn't want to comment "until I do." "I actually want to read the provisions before making a statement on it," he said. "Alright?""

Quote :

" Former Sen. John Edwards, who is running third in the polls behind Clinton and Obama, sought to ratchet up the pressure on the front-runners to oppose the bill, denouncing it as a "capitulation" to Bush. "What I'm asking is for the Congress to stand its ground, to do what it needs to do for America," Edwards told CNN's "The Situation Room." "This is not about politics. It's about life and death." When he was in the Senate in 2003, Edwards voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq, but he now says that vote was a mistake."

----

I only point this out again b/c I like the give and take between Obama & Edwards.

I see how Edwards & Obama engaged in debate earlier this week, and think that they could make a strong team to lead the nation. Edwards was able to support a rival for the presidency for being right from the start on the war (whereas he voted for the war & apologized, & Hillary voted for the war & wont apologize). Edwards & Obama were able to vocally support each other at the debate for being the 1st & 2nd respectively to release comprehensive & similar health care plans & discuss the merits of each, and they were able to intelligently criticize each other for Edwards not being right on the war from the start & Obama being quiet on the Iraq war funding bill w/o timetables when it seemed like it would be unpopular to speak for or against it. These are candidates who have also been in similar positions of supporting our troops by bringing them home & speaking out against what’s going on in Darfur for some time.

The back and forth of good and bad, of support & intelligent criticisms, makes me think this could be a strong team that could work together to lead but still keep each other in perspective. I just have a hard time imaging Bush & Dick going through the same rigorous & courteous debate & holding each other to standards that are right for America.


[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 2:57:24 PM

Quote :

"Edwards looked like a good leader at one point where he pointed out how the other main 2 were quiet in the time leading up a vote on a funding bill for the war without time tables."

Eh, no...Edwards came out aggressive and it was breaking his way until Obama noted that he'd opposed the war from the start and that Edwards was "about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue." Ouch.

Edwards regained his footing later in the debate, but that moment hurt him.

6/5/2007 4:06:03 PM

Obama & Hillary basically got angry at reporters b/c they were asked a question that it was unpopular to answer either way. While Obama had a good response to Edwards, I think overall Edwards gains ground anytime he can point out that he was outspoken while others were silent. It may have been a better moment for Obama, but it wasn’t a bad moment for Edwards.

6/5/2007 4:15:26 PM

Obama & Hillary basically got angry at reporters b/c they were asked a question that it was unpopular to answer either way. While Obama had a good response to Edwards, I think overall Edwards gains ground anytime he can point out that he was outspoken while others were silent. It may have been a better moment for Obama, but it wasn’t a bad moment for Edwards.

Hillary on the other hand had no response for being silent, unlike Obama who said I was right on the war from the start, Hillary just went back to saying “this is Bush’s war” I shouldn’t catch any heat for anything I do related to it one way or the other.

6/5/2007 4:16:22 PM

holy poopballs, i'm having a hard time keeping track of all these dudes in the republican debate

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 7:21 PM. Reason : +]

6/5/2007 7:21:07 PM

When/what channel is the Republican one tonight?

6/5/2007 7:23:51 PM

started at 7...on cnn...there's also a free feed on cnn

6/5/2007 7:26:17 PM

d'oh!

6/5/2007 7:26:34 PM

Here’s a track record of what I’ve seen so far.

Before hand thoughts:

The top CNN stories are

GOP debaters scramble for recognition

and

Libby sentenced, Cheney 'saddened'

I don’t know why Cheney is said, Libby will probably get an extremely non-standard okay not to serve time during the appeal, then just wait til Bush can pardon him w/o reprecussions at the end of his term, so no jail time for what he did.

The bottom of the Dem’s top 3 still raised more money than McCain. But he’s too old and too much of a Bush cronnie these days to win with the anti-iraq sentiment out there.






The republicans at this point need someone to come out incredibly strong compared to the rest, no draw, no uncertainty on who won, no minor advances, and no one overly tied to Bush… and they need to do it without bickering too much. Right now their two greatest weaknesses are a flooded field and ties to Bush.

--

7:02 I liked how the very first question of the debate was responded to by saying I wont answer it because its hypothetical.

7:04 Also the first time McCain talked, it the bar on how much they like what you’re saying fell into the negatives right away and stayed there.

7:10 Now the republicans are quibbling on who read what before voting for it, and which of the candidates on stage should have read more.

7:12 McCain can’t raise the republican support bar without dropping the independents to halfway to the bottom of the negatives.

7:16 A lot of terror talk, I imagine that there will be a lot of fear talk tonight. I like how he said he’d like to “remind the other candidates” that we should watch out for terror & the Taliban.

7:20 Yay, lets all pre-emptively attack Iran. Nukes are on definitely on the table for us to use, b/c Iran has thousands of centrifuges. JFK AIRPORT!

7:21 War on terror isn’t a bumper sticker (looks like Edwards got to ‘em)

7:25 We should not be a bilingual nation.

7:28 Giuliani, and even more so Romney spoke pretty well on immigration. I don’t agree with everything he said, but they said it well.

7:30 McCain is speaking again and in the negatives. None of the other republicans tonight, and none of the democrats earlier this week hit the negatives as often through the debates as he has already hit in the first half hour. McCain also said anyone else with a better idea should raise their hand (rhetorically of course, but they all raised their hand… they certain do not care about avoiding the appearance of bickering)

6/5/2007 7:32:31 PM

7:36 English official language? No hands raised against it. I guess they are all okay with the whole not having translators in hospitals.

( vs national language like it already is)

7:39 we don't know what fred is for, but we know most of the other main ones aren't nearly conservative enough to deserve to win

7:41 I liked Giuliani’s talk about respect in a pluralistic society.

7:45 God & Evolution

The republicans bar went negative as soon as McCain opened his mouth again, before a word came out.

7:49 Ron the libertarian did well talking about keeping religion vs gov at the local level

7:50 Giuliani: we have to believe science when it says global warming exists

7:52 The republicans don't like Romney talking about the gas companies making too much money (and not re-investing it)

7:55 one candidate just said something to the effect that we shouldn't be going to wars over oil

7:59 Romney just had to give a non-apology apology for previously being okay with gays in the military b/c now hes against it while running for president on the republican ticket (just as he had to do the same thing with his previous position on abortion)

8:01 What would you do w/ Bush once your the pres? Thompson: "certainly not send him to the UN" which may have helped him distance himself from bush some.

8:03 Tancredo: He really bashed bush. He said he was disappointed with him ever since Karl Rove told him not to come to the white house again.

8:04 Huckabee: The GOP has lost its way.

8:05 Is it okay to pardon Libby? Almost all said I can't answer.

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 8:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 7:37:42 PM

this "evolution debate" has gone buck nutty

6/5/2007 7:46:20 PM

For a second ther I thought God was going to strike down on Rudy with a lightning bolt.

6/5/2007 8:00:08 PM

8:05 Is it okay to pardon Libby? Almost all said I can't answer (b/c I haven't read enough)

8:07 Only Brownback & Tancredo said yes

8:08 INTERMISION – time for refreshments!

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 8:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 8:08:13 PM

I appreciated God's continuing intervention in these debates and his censorship of Rudy Guiliani's inane drivel.

6/5/2007 8:15:57 PM

McCain just stood up while everyone is sitting, and said the war was mismanaged, and used the words straight talk. It seems silly what he is doing now, but its the visual sound bite of the night.

Lol now, several minutes later, Giuliani feels he has to stand too.

Now Gilmore is standing, not on thanking a family member for troops dying for America like the other 2, but for saying “I’ve done okay on the environment.” McCain is really going to come off as a leader b/c his standing changed the way the rest of the debate is being run.

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 8:19:52 PM

pretty soon everyone's gonna be up and walking around

6/5/2007 8:22:38 PM

8:31 Going more paperless on health care was something both dems & reps said in the debates this week.

8:32 Romney said all the major democrats are saying they want to pay for healthcare with a massive tax increase which is disingenuous. All 3 of them said no raising taxes. Edwards/Obama said no more tax cuts for 250 k plus a year, Hillary said we will only add into health care what we can take out of its costs by making it more efficient.

8:37 Just say no to pre-emptive war

8:41 That's a problem I have w/ McCain's bill

8:48 LOL they are saying the republicans problems is all because they were being to liberal. I’ve watched big spending neo-cons, and they aren’t liberals.

8:57 They are really this close to the end, 3 minutes left, and they are bickering. They are too liberal, they are too anti-gun, they are socialists!

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 8:31:56 PM

why is that guy saying that bilingual countries are bad and hell bent on destruction? there are successful bi and trilingual countries

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 8:46 PM. Reason : +]

6/5/2007 8:44:28 PM

Anyone else notice that Romney turned a question on why he's for English being the official language and yet was running Spanish ads into selling technology to China?

6/5/2007 8:52:40 PM

The Republican’s main two problems are being tied to Bush & having a flooded field. With tonights debate they needed to:

1) distance themselves from Bush
2) not bicker a lot
3) have someone come out with a strong win to get out of the flood

They didn't distance themselves from Bush much, they all tried to stick a little too close to Libby. They didn’t have a strong leader. I mean McCain was the first to stand (while actually distancing himself from Bush a little), probably talked the most, and was the last to speak, but others said bad things about him and each other a lot. I think it’ll take another debate before the republicans have sorted much out. McCain came across as the slight leader to me.

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 9:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2007 9:01:49 PM

^^ That was the exact moment I said to hell with the whole thing and turned it off

6/5/2007 9:09:23 PM

Reps: white male only

Dems: white, black, hispanic, male, female

6/5/2007 9:32:33 PM

^

6/5/2007 9:51:02 PM

Did anyone win?

I thought McCain, but the real-time polling seemed to suggest NH Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents weren't as enamored.

6/5/2007 9:55:24 PM

it's funny how the moderation focuses most of the time on the supposed front runners instead of giving equal fucking time to everyone. god damn that pisses me off

6/5/2007 9:59:10 PM

I haven't seen a time breakdown, but it seemed like the time was more evenly spread out during this debate.

6/5/2007 10:02:26 PM

^Incorrect:

http://chrisdodd.com/blog

6/5/2007 10:55:40 PM

This is good. It's the Fox News Republican Debate in 44 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKtuXmorlSY

Here's the first Republican debate in 32 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liXVWd4JvCs&NR=1

6/5/2007 10:57:51 PM

i expected a rickroll

6/6/2007 2:18:24 AM

^^ awesome

6/6/2007 3:06:31 AM

What's the deal with the hand-raising questions? That's such a stupid way to run a debate.

I like how you usually see a couple people look around THEN raise their hand.

6/6/2007 3:32:17 AM