Barack can try to coast if he wants to, but he does nothing to counter his weak image by refusing to debate without video clips & "gotcha" moderators. Hillary has more than 15 million votes -- more than any other candidate in history. Yes, for the billionth time he's ahead in states won (meaningless) and delegates thanks to the activists and their children who flooded all the caucus sites, but finding 90 minutes before May 6 to stand with Hillary so the two candidates can ask each other questions could be a great opportunity for the party and find a trajectory into Denver.

hillary was the odds on favorite going into this nom process and she blew it... now apparently obama has a weak image and is trying to coast to victory... it would appear the opposite if you step back a few feet..

Get better soon!

It won't be anywhere near as good without Colbert doing the
honors. Probably the first and last time Bush ever heard a little
truth.

Besides, it's nauseating to see how the capitol press sucks up to
Bush.

There is a clear consensus that doubts are growing about Barack "Hey guys, I just answered, like, eight questions" Obama. Prevent defense is one way to go, but if he believes in himself and in America as much as he wants us to, he ought to have the audacity to go toe-to-toe with Hillary in an unmoderated debate and hope America chooses him.

Dick Morris: Iraq could backfire on Obama
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61107

Clinton Win Stirs Doubts on Obama
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899936978040077.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Barack Obama limps on tainted by Hillary Clinton's encore
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3803951.ece

Losses reveal weaknesses that could haunt Obama
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5725778.html

Obama: Stop complaining, start fighting back
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080426/OPINION01/804260321

Changing the Changeling
http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/46464/

Two minute statement/counterstatement crossfire, as the Clinton campaign proposed, has little to do with a "Lincoln-Douglas style" debate.

It is too bad that Obama has not taken Hillary up on the new debate format. I suggested (elsewhere) that Obama make a similar request of Hillary.

We, Democrats, really don't need some jerk asking dumb questions. If dumb questions are to be asked, we should do it personally.

Maybe something big is afoot. I've never seen the map this lit up. We might get a chance to see how really inconsequential we really are.

http://www.iris.washington.edu/seismon/

sure i will debate her, after she and bill admit they are pro slavery.

It amazes me that these jackasses that advocate for any of these candidates are so willing to cast reality out the window.

For instance, Tahoe Editor would have us simply ignore the IRREFUTABLE FACT that Hillary seems to have a problem restraining herself from exagerating the truth and lying to us. His attidude seems to be, "Oh, so what if she's a liar? Can we move on now to my shameless pimping?"

I find it hard to believe that Tahoe Editor is not connected to Hillary's campaign, and is not simply schilling for her at TWN. No one can be so tunnel visioned and one sided, ignoring the obvious faults of a candidate, unless they are on a marketing mission. He reminds me of MP's blind support and repetitiously boring defense of AIPAC.

At least the Obama elves seem to be sincere citizens, rather than political operatives. I find their blubbering support for Obama no less inexplicable, but at least ignorance and misguided patriotism isn't an act of will, as purposeful and shameless pimping is.

Its amazing, also, how little pimping for McCain we see on the RW radio shows. It seems the scriptwriters for the GOP are reduced to nipping at the hamstrings of the democratic candidates, rather than finding much to laud about this ill-tempered geriatric dinosaur they find themselves saddled with.

I had to laugh yesterday as one of the RW mouthpieces was saying that drivers should no longer be allowed to drive past the age of 75, that their driving privileges should be suspended at that point. I tried to call in to tell the damned fool that he had a Presidential candidate that he felt was going to be mentally incapable of driving before he finished his term of office. Unfortunately, I couldn't get through. No doubt his screeners would have nixed my call anyway.

Anyway, what a pathetic cast of characters.

Meanwhile, a short hop over to TPMucracker is enough to drive any true patriot to insanity. Who would have believed our politicians would one day be able to so brazenly show contempt for the American people, and the rule of law, yet completely avoid being held accountable?

And this shameless liar Hillary wants to debate this media fabrication Obama in yet one more display of softball queries and irrelevant banter?

Screw that. Lets give all three of these clowns baseball bats, put 'em in a ring, and televise it on MTV. The winner gets the throne.

"I find it hard to believe that Tahoe Editor is not connected to Hillary's campaign, and is not simply schilling for her at TWN."

DITTO

At least she/he gets paid, I would hope.

By the way, I found that display of pomposity absolutely repulsive, but couldn't take my eyes off the screen, like watching a train wreck. The only redeeming quality of the event was seeing Steny Hoyer's hairpiece. Evidently, the guy doesn't have any mirrors in his house. And these are the people who're supposed to 'govern' us? No wonder.....
Also, am I the only one to think that Craig Ferguson
is just about the most unfunny bloke on the planet?

Debate issues -- and stop denigrating the background and motives of those in the debate.

I happen to know who TahoeEditor is and he's far, far away from being a paid or compensated Clinton apparatchik. He is just a true believer, like some others of you on Obama.

I am debating issues, just not the "issues" you would prefer I debate. Personally, I am attempting to debate why someone would advocate for an IRREFUTABLE LIAR.

Steve, are you offering a direct denial that Hillary has lied to us? Want to "debate" that?

And the "motives and backgrounds" of these candidate's more voracious supporters on your blog IS RELEVANT, and should be fair game. It is only reasonable to question why someone works so diligently to cast a candidate in such a favorable light while ignoring the less than stellar aspects of that candidate's performance and character. It would be stupid NOT to ponder thier motives when considering their arguments.

Truthfully, when I see the kind of tunnel visioned denial of reality that these "true believers" exhibit when advocating for these posturing frauds it is a miracle I even get to the point of pondering their "motives", as the bigger question for me is the state of their intelligence.

Dear Mr. Clemons,
well, if he's (Tahoe Editor) a true believer then I'm an infidel. But I do love your website :) It's the homepage on my Firefox browser. I think POA is my brother from another mother.

You can never know the backgrounds and motivations of people
who are anonymous speakers. You can speculate; you can have
private thoughts about this or that; but you can't know.

So charging them with this or that motivation is a waste of time.
Pointless, really. Like chasing your own tail.

For example, when people are enthusiastic about anyone or
anything, they tend to overlook the negatives--even if the
negatives are glaring to you who doesn't share their enthusiasm.

This happens all the time, not just in politics, but in our
personal lives. Your best friend marries someone whom you
can't stand. Say she happens to be wealthy. So you say, "It must
be her money." Well, maybe. But a lot of the time, the
explanation is just: He digs her and you don't.

"Your best friend marries someone whom you
can't stand. Say she happens to be wealthy. So you say, "It must be her money." Well, maybe. But a lot of the time, the
explanation is just: He digs her and you don't.

Your comparison is ridiculous. We are talking about the Presidfency of the United States.

If Tahoe Editor is so infatuated with a Hillary presidency that he has completely missed noting the lies, then anything he says about her is suspect.

Fawning supporters of _ANY_ candidate make me feel extremely suspicious. TE's contributions read like they belong on some Teen Magazine. But hey, keep 'em coming....meanwhile, people in Upstate NY are still waiting for those 200,000 jobs she promised. Oh wait wait wait...

Your comparison is ridiculous. We are talking about the
Presidfency of the United States."

My point wasn't the comparison; of course, the two situations
are very different in terms of consequences.

The point is that it's very hard to divine another's motivations,
even when you know "him" well. Much harder when you don't
know anything about him.

Hillary has lots of fawning supporters who ignore all sorts of
things about her--same for Obama. Same for all the
candidates. She also has detractors who ignore her good points.

You go off and a very thin branch when you presume to know
why people do or say what they say about their support for a
candidate. It doesn't make any sense to you, but that's you.

POA et. al.,

POA, you would be the first to call all politicians liars. So what's the deal? Why are you more personally obsessed with Hillary's lies than everyone else's? I agree -- they all lie. So now, given that level playing field, who do you think can both win a general election and make some of the changes you'd like to see in this country? For me, that answer is Hillary. It happens to be the answer for more than 15 million other voters so far.

I'm not a paid shill for Hillary -- in fact I've volunteered several hours to call voters in upcoming contests. I don't really care if she embellished her Bosnia story. I don't really care if she expected sniper fire so much that when it didn't happen, some part of her memory was convinced it did. I really don't care, and most voters don't. (I also don't care about Jeremiah Wright. I found admiration and respect for him after his PBS appearance. But I don't really care and I don't think it applies to this election -- except the extent to which he'll be used to paint Barack as unpatriotic.)

I support Hillary because of the three, she best articulates the policies & changes I'd like to see. Yes, there are some issues on which we don't see eye-to-eye. Which of the three do you see eye-to-eye with? None, of course. You write them all off. And maybe that's a great place for you to be. For me, they're not all the same.

My problem with Barack is that while his debate performance has improved for the most part, he still comes off too often as not knowing what he's talking about. He's been afraid of the press from the start because of this -- even during his Halcyon days when every MSM outlet superimposed a halo over his head at every turn. "Come on, guys, I just answered like, eight questions!" That approach does not a president make, and I don't think America's going to put someone in the White House who doesn't have answers to questions he won't address but says he's going around the world on a Dictator Tour during his first year in office to make everything all better. I understand and appreciate how he has generated as much excitement and support as Hillary, but I don't think the BO wave is going to build enough to spill out of the pool where the Hollywood/MoveOn/Kerry/Kennedy/PhD/white wine set are splashing about.

"Why are you more personally obsessed with Hillary's lies than everyone else's? I agree -- they all lie"

Because she is such a lousy liar, and because her lies and feigned emotional "episodes" are so transparent. What really gets to me is that people like yourself can say "I agree -- they all lie", and then turn around and act like we can separate the lies from the truth. You laud her articulation of "the policies & changes I'd like to see." Careful articulation is the hallmark of an accomplished con-person, is it not? What, you have some sort of "lie radar" that tells you when their campaign rhetoric is truth rather than fiction?

Me? I'm sick of this "they all do it" horseshit. As long as we accept it, they'll do it. Until we start holding our politicians accountable, we deserve the shit they shovel our way. When some posturing fraud like Hillary gets caught in a bald faced lie, imagine what future candidates would think if the American people rejected such a liar en masse. Do you think candidates would try to be a bit more respectful of the truth? But nope, theres always this chorus of duped and star struck slobberers out there chanting "Yeah, but they ALL do it".

You think she's lying about "obliterating Iran"? Or when she's cashing those Arms Industry checks? Somehow, something tells me therein lies the REAL Hillary Clinton. But don't worry about it, Tahoe, at least theres a real Hillary in there somewhere, even if it is a monster that sees no evil in peppering a civilian population with millions of cluster bomblets.

Obama? He's still trying to find his "reality" in the highest bidder. His recent comments about Carter, Israel, and Petreaus are a pretty good indication about who's winning the auction.

But what does it matter? Using your logic, "they all do it", its just a big 'ol crapshoot, right?

"They all do it" isn't "logic" or "argument" -- it's fact. I don't argue with facts.

If you can't separate lie from truth, you're hopelessly lost in your solipsism. Explains a lot.

Oh I get it.

When she feeds us some line of shit, you just nod your head and think "Well, she's lyin' now, but she'll make a great President".

Explains alot.

She'll make a better one.

Thats a mighty low standard. Its going to take a hell of a sight more than "the lesser of three evils" to bail this country out.

OK, TE, what do you find so admirable about HRC's foreign policy positions? Isn't this the woman who coined the phrase "obliteration" of a totally non-hostile country. Do you, even for a moment, think that this kind of bellicosity is going to win us any friends on the global stage? But then again, it may depend on the definition of 'us', won't it.

There are three choices
I think she's the best choice
You choose doom & gloom
Enjoy
I'm going to see Baby Mama

All "true believers" are fools. And hyper active activist are usually weak minds like movie star groupies or members of some single issue cult they think their hero will push thru.

And I think it is interesting and informative to know a person's motivations for who they support.

And I don't care who Tahoe is, or if Steve knows him or not...his obsession with Hillary' infallibality is nitwitty ....not to mention his prior statements about representative "democracy"..which sound a exactly like the simple minded defense spin of every lobby and foreign agent in DC.

Just because its devisive doesn't mean that its wrong. English only. This is America, not sh*t*ss Mexico. www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com

"And I don't care who Tahoe is, or if Steve knows him or not...his obsession with Hillary' infallibility is nitwitty."

I've heard this all before. My best friend from college who supports Obama always comes at me with his sarcasm, saying, "Yes, she's flawless, let's go for her ... yada yada yada."

All this only shows that Carroll et. al. haven't actually been reading what I write, and have this alternate fantasy world in which I somehow go on and on about her "infallibility."

Stop battling all those voices in your head and engage. Positing my "obsession with Hillary's infallibility" is the true nitwittiness and indicates an abject inability to listen.

"Stop battling all those voices in your head and engage. Positing my "obsession with Hillary's infallibility" is the true nitwittiness and indicates an abject inability to listen."

Horseshit.

"And I think it is interesting and informative to know a person's
motivations for who they support."

Yes, I agree. Except you can never know what they are unless he
tells you. Or you have a reliable third party who knows the person.
It's pointless to argue about things you can't see and can never
know...can only speculate about.

"And I think it is interesting and informative to know a person's
motivations for who they support."

Yes, I agree. Except you can never know what they are unless he
tells you. Or you have a reliable third party who knows the person.
It's pointless to argue about things you can't see and can never
know...can only speculate about.

Travesty on all levels and choices leave us to put our heads between our legs and pray for the best.

Hi,
I went through your site & it was very informative.
I am sure you are also concern about page rank like every other webmaster.
I want to link to your site via the keyword "collection agencies". We can talk about that and can come to a fair negotiation where both of us will be the beneficiaries.
Please feel free to reply and contact me. I am sure this link exchange will help us in the long run.
I'll be eagerly waiting for your quick reply. You may please contact me at: cassandra21st(at)gmail(dot)com.