Clinton: Obama 'Change You Can Xerox'

Det give it up. You know you are voting for Obama...

Amazing that this headline would be the very line that fell flat as a pancake. I wonder about the AP sometimes. Tacky headline--no substance.

Senator Clinton will keep Florida. I know you are Cuban but she will keep FL. No doubt in my mind! I lived in FL for a good portion of my time in the Navy....people haven't changed there much in some of my more recent visits. Hillary will not lose FL but Obama will lose a lot of ground there. Talking to Cuba with no preconditions bad choice on his part. (Did you notice he now says there must be preparation before we talk to any of our enemies? and then adds just like Senator Clinton says). Not what he has espoused up to this point. Now if only we could get their delegates to count!

(Did you notice he now says there must be preparation before we talk to any of our enemies? and then adds just like Senator Clinton says)

Did you notice that they both referred to each other as agreeing, many many times?

Your headlines failed to mention that Hillary was booed after that cheap comment, and Obama had a roar of applause after his statement.

Secondly the words she said that lead her to the standing ovation was the actual words said by John Edwards in an earlier debate. Which is now reported by Politico.com. Turning her plagiarism argument on its ears.

Which is now reported by Politico.com.

As was reported by CNN; but my feeling was that she was saying much the same thing, not precisely the same thing, much as each candidate tonight parroted the other, paraphrase after paraphrase. No-one seemed to want to land any blows, and Clinton's attempt was practically forced by CNN.

Independent we can thank Keith Olbermann for sharing that from Politico.com. Backfired again...

Det

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You're being even more obscure and/or unintelligible than usual…You owe society an explanation.

Viva Fidel!

====

Prediction for November: A Democratic win that will make Johnson's trouncing of Goldwater in 1964 look like a nailbiter. McCain will be lucky to win Arizona. (Oh, is he too from Arizona? So was Goldwater! Note to GOP: Don't nominate cranky old men from Arizona!)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You're being even more obscure and/or unintelligible than usual…You owe society an explanation. I think it's a half-educated attempt to compare Obama to Petruchio from Shakespeare's the Taming of the Shrew. Which would have been funnier if the name had been correct. As is, it's funny for an entirely different reason.

Of course, it might be a reference to Petronius, the author of the Satyricon, but that makes even less sense.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You're being even more obscure and/or unintelligible than usual…You owe society an explanation

.

Control your TTT, Google Petronio and go to Wikipedia. My intel is above yours, anytime.

I think it's a half-educated attempt to compare Obama to Petruchio from Shakespeare's the Taming of the Shrew. Which would have been funnier if the name had been correct. As is, it's funny for an entirely different reason.

Same advise. Google Petronio and go to Wikipedia first.

"Google Petronio and go to Wikipedia first."

Ok. Done.

San Petronio Basilica: The Basilica of San Petronio is the main church of Bologna, the old art city in the Emilia Romagna region of Italy. It is not the metropolitan cathedral of the city, which is the Cathedral of Saint Peter.It dominates the Piazza Maggiore. It is the fifth largest church in the world, stretching for 132 meters in length and 60 in width, while the vault reaches 45 meters inside and 51 meters in the facade. It can contain about 28,000 persons.

It is dedicated to the patron saint of the city, Saint Petronius, who was the bishop of Bologna in the fifth century. Following a council decree of 1388, the first stone of construction was laid June 7, 1390, when the town council entrusted Antonio di Vincenzo with raising a Gothic cathedral.

Aside from the fact that I really like the work of Jacopo della Quercia, nothing there really enlightened me.

The second Wikipedia link is for the Satyricon

The third is for a dismabiguation page in Italian that directs you to "Petronio" as a male first name, Petronius-- the author of the Satyricon, and "Petronio" the stream flowing through the province of Genoa.

Going directly to Wikipedia and searching on the term "Petronio" returns:

followed by even less relevant links.

Stephen Petronio was a dancer, so you might have meant that, but then why not actually choose a dancer any of us might have a hope in hell of recognizing, like Gene (Kelly) or Fred (Astaire) or even Ginger (Rogers)? Renato Petronio was an Italian rower who participated in the Olympics. Reference to the fact that Obama has a difficult job rowing upstream against Republican nonsense? Petronio Quintero is a South American musician. Reference to Obama's mellifluous voice?

Let me give you some "advise." If you're going to make a reference, it's usually a good idea (if you mean it to be either laudatory or disparaging) to make sure it's a reference which makes any kind of sense, or is liable to be understood without explanation.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking to the idea that your reference was a half-educated reference to Petruchio. That reference, at least, has the benefit of being marginally applicable.

My intel is above yours, anytime. Yes, clearly. You're so smart that you've outsmarted yourself.

But iarnuocon, his intel is way above yours. You must be missing something. He uses google and wikipedia.

Well, I'd like to think that maybe-- given his insistence that we "google petronio and go to the first wikipedia link"-- he had traced some circuitous route through San Petronio Basilica to Petronius, Bishop of Bologna. Get it?

But that's a stretch, too.

Here's the explanation.

"In Cuba when a man was a top of the fashion (many) we always joke that he was a Petronio because the best and most expensive tailor's shop was named Petronio."

Seriously? lol... Crap. I liked all of my speculations better than that. That's not even funny!

Taming of the Shrew? Funny.
Bishop of Bologna? Funny.
Snappy dresser? Uh... ok.

Rolling the eyes and shaking my head.

I can't believe that moi that does not understand English is better judge of Obama's supreme elegancy.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronio

a) First of all, I think that the US Senator Obama is very elegant.

b) I was very careful to find the right description.

c) Stop whining, please.

Cayo o Tito Petronio Árbitro (20 dC – 66 dC), writer and roman politician.

Now, let's go back to the thread.

d) she's a she, not a he. :)

Right. Ok, Petronius-- the author of the Satyricon, as I speculated in comment #1.9. You could simply have said "yes." And then, "because of his eloquence." It would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

Too Late

Yes... she should. She is much better when she is classy. If she wins she should fire the person who wrote the xerox line.

If she wins she should fire the person who wrote the xerox line.

Amen to that.

'Change You Can Xerox'

Bill Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

Hillary Clinton, 08: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Big finishes you can Xerox.......

But probably shouldn't when you're complaining about the other guy doing it.....

The sad thing about Hillary's campaign is that it's possible to watch her make calculated misstep after calculated misstep. Firing the Xerox writer is not enough. The whole campaign is in serious trouble. She is like a flamenco dancer with one foot in a bucket of cement.

She is like a flamenco dancer with one foot in a bucket of cement.

Add that to "Dancing with the Stars" and maybe I'll watch.

Clinton, especially tonight, reminds me of a child who sees that she is clearly not the favorite child but still kicks and screams and tries to cause as much attention to get focused on her as she can. In the end, she is going to come out with a negative consequence and a bad image around her as that candidate who came close, but just wasn't meant to be the President.

Obama is exactly what this country needs.

Clinton, especially tonight,

Excuse me? Especially tonight? Pass me some of that kool-aid. This was a pretty damned civil "debate", they both had good moments, bad moments, snippy moments, honest moments.

Clinton has had some miscues and low points, absolutey. Ab-so-lutely. But "especially tonight"? Not even.

I have to agree with Chasing, and I dislike Hillary quite a bit. Tonight I actually found I respected her more (for what she was saying) compared to other times I have seen her. I was very pleased with out the debate turned out, even though I support neither candidate.

CNN was showing their crappiness to bring up the plagiarism issue.

CNN was showing their crappiness to bring up the plagiarism issue.

Clearly Hillary still hasn't let it go, no reason CNN should have passed on what was made a big issue by her campaign and continues to make her upset with Obama.

I think Hillary has let it go, but it was her team that made it into an issue. She deserved to have it brought up.

CNN was showing their crappiness to bring up the plagiarism issue.

Amazing... I have been debating you guys on the silliness of that argument for the past two days. But now CNN is wrong for bringing it up? After Hillary and her supporters have been bringing it up until the debate started? Only now, do her people agree that it was silly and petty?

Of course CNN should have brought it up. It would have been a disservice if they hadn't I told everyone in countless debates that she will fall on the sword she crafted.

Seems the MSM has already picked up a similar perspective of Hillary back on the attack about plagiarism:

In response to a debate panelist's question, Clinton cited news reports about Obama's nearly verbatim use of remarks by a close ally of his, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. She argued that Obama has drawn great praise for his speeches, and then questioned whether they were authentic or plagiarized.

Playing off a trademark line of Obama's, she said: "Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in. It's change you can Xerox."

Not to mention citing YouTube and trying to mount additional evidence to something most think she should let go.

I can't see this as "letting it go." But I will at this point.

It will be hard to know if she has let it go since it was asked fairly early on in the debate (I think?). Perhaps she wouldn't have brought it up, perhaps she would have. Perhaps she should have said her team was wrong to have made it an issue, perhaps she shouldn't have.

The Xerox reply to the plagiarism question was calculated. I suspect she wanted the issue to be brought up.

Perhaps she should have said her team was wrong to have made it an issue, perhaps she shouldn't have

My Gawd! If she would've had the balls and the class to say that. It would have scored HUGE points. Think about how many points she scored in the end when she showed a little class in the end?

After not congratulating Obama in the last few victories, she got BIG-FOOTED on national TV which cut off her speech. But nobody came to her rescue, because after consistently not congratulating Obama, many felt that she deserved it. But when she showed class at the end of the debate and showed mutual respect, she got a standing ovation. Hopefully she learned that the American people are rejecting the old style of politics. At least this election. LOL

Our Evita forgot that we have Medicaid already. Her obsession with the universal health care is her 100% rhetoric..

Our Evita forgot that we have Medicaid already.

I'm a tad mystified by this. She even mentioned Medicaid and Medicare. They're far from comprehensive - Medicaid especially - even should you be "lucky" enough to be on it. So I don't quite know what your point is?

You think Medicaid leaves a lot to be desired well try Medicare on for size. I am still young enough that Medicare is my secondary insurance. But without my husband's employer sponsored insurance (literally a piece of ####), the VA and Medicare I would be screwed.

CNN was showing their crappiness to bring up the plagiarism issue.

LOL! Well, Hillary sure had a "snappy" line for the occasion. Was that crappiness as well? How come her campaign can fling that @!$%# all day and night, and then you think it shouldn't be addressed?

I felt that Hillary would have avoided the plagiarism issue, simply because it holds no water, if only CNN left it alone as well. Then once she said the Xerox comment, it became obvious that she wasn't sure on the issue. It was a mistake, and perhaps a costly one. I'm surprised to see her make such a mistake, although to be honest, Obama was doing a lot better with the attacks during the debate and it was probably an act of almost desperation and fuzzy thinking by Hillary.

My response to Hillary about Obama's supposed plagiarism: NO ONE CARES.

Even the person he allegedly plagiarized said he doesn't care. So why do you? Hillary wonders why the media portrays her as the devil. It's because Obama's message has been consistently positive. Hillary, on the other hand, likes to pick fights. Unfortunately for her, the positive message is the one voters care about more.

if only CNN left it alone as well

Absolutely. I don't think she'd have brought it up. But I don't blame CNN for bringing it up, either.

Hillary garnered some boo's with her continuation of the plagiarism accusations

She did. And I'm not going to say it was undeserved, either. However, the debate took place in Austin, which is about as pro-Obama as you're going to get in Texas (or many other states, maybe even most).

the debate took place in Austin, which is about as pro-Obama as you're going to get in Texas

Hillary got plenty of applause, so let's not discount the boos just because she was in "Obama country."

I think she won on healthcare, he won (or she lost) on keeping the campaign positive. Otherwise it was pretty much a draw.

Chasing - I agree that CNN should have brought it up. Initially I was thinking CNN was being a tad unfair to Hillary, but then I realized that Hillary brought it upon herself with her staff bringing up the plagiarism issue in the first place.

They chose "Change you can xerox" for the headline? Anyone else notice that she got booed for that line?

Spiffie I can't agree with the healthcare statement. He was very clear that he would provide the opportunity to everyone who wanted healthcare, while she didn't seem (at least to me) to justify why she would be garnishing the wages of those who don't want socialized healthcare.

Hillary got plenty of applause, so let's not discount the boos just because she was in "Obama country."

Yeah she got lots of applause. Even though Austin is Obama country (and it is), not everyone in that audience was pro-Obama. Some were pro-Hillary. Some were undecided. And even people who are pro-one-candidate can still applaud the opposition, if they make a good point, and especially if it's a point that comes straight from the Democratic plank.

They chose "Change you can xerox" for the headline? Anyone else notice that she got booed for that line?

It was one throw-away line that wasn't her best and wasn't meaningful for him, either. It's substanceless. It is a perplexing choice of headline.

I'm ready to dismiss the media now. In a debate on numerous important issues facing our country, the AP chose "change you can xerox" as the debates most important moment. Gag.

Otherwise it was pretty much a draw.

Clearly people are partisan and are going to see negatives where others see positives, and vice versa. This is a reality, and I acknowledge it. So, saying that, admitting that, you know where I stand, and to me (and my sister, who you know is seriously involved in the health care issue) Hillary won. A blow-out? No. But a solid performance, whereas he seemed weak and shaky.

I have no doubt that Obama fans would say the same about Clinton though. It's weird, no, how four eyes can see two things?

It's how it played to independents, I guess, that will matter. By which I mean as-yet uncommited independents - as Kevin and I are both independent, and obviously support different candidates.

I hate the way AP changes headlines, but the Castro headline was no better.

Since healthcare was made a key issue with all the passion, failure to answer the questions, and rebuttles to keep the healthcare issue at the fore - it bears remembering how Obama used attack:

Hillary will not put mandates on the government but will force the people to adopt her healthcare programs. He didn't quite capitalize on the "mandating a broken program will only make things worse" but he was very strong in painting Hillary as more of the old political processes where ideas go to die.

Heh. Your weak and shaky is my thoughtful, measured, and considerate, I guess. :-)

I liked his answer on Cuba, and I thought he pretty effectively addressed the "empty" campaign/"let's get real" thing. He scored with the quote in #3. He worked in a lot of specific legislative measures (e.g. the Dream Act).

Hillary was in a tough spot, I thought. The "conventional wisdom" was that she needed to go on the offensive, but when she did she seemed tentative and unsure. It also clearly didn't play well. So instead she stayed as positive as possible (her only other option, really), and mostly failed to really differentiate herself, except on healthcare. If the conventional wisdom is correct that she needed to score big this debate, I don't think she made it.

She didn't hurt herself, but she didn't hurt him either. Likewise Obama. So a draw, as I see it. From the POV of the press, she probably lost because she didn't perform to the level they seem to be saying she needed to. (The CNN wrap-up is sort of shaping up that way right now. Ugh.)

Too, I'm a little curious as to how anyone can look at Hillary as "successful" on healthcare. Wasn't she a part of Bill's failed healthcare dreams back when he was President? Wasn't she very much involved in that process? Is there any evidence that she learned from those mistakes?

Frankly, the idea that you should force people to purchase insurance which is largely already too expensive, rather than lowering the cost so that more people can afford it, seems completely stupid and exactly the sort of ham-handedness that Republicans are warning a Democratic Presidency would lead to.

Hillary as the Dem candidate would seem a hopeful sign for McCain, in my opinion.

I liked his answer on Cuba

You mean her answer that he paraphrased? I will grant however, that he'd probably have given the same answer had he gone first. Essentially, they said the same thing.

If the conventional wisdom is correct that she needed to score big this debate, I don't think she made it.

I think the conventional wisdom is wrong, here. I think all she needed to do was hold her own, and I think she did. This does leave her at risk of losing Texas (and hey, I predicted that ages ago, did I not) because it doesn't really move the needle very much. However, I think she did plenty to reassure voters who perhaps supported her, but were beginning to waver.

The press/commentary does seem heavily pro-Obama, though. Did he hire them as cheerleaders or something?

The press/commentary does seem heavily pro-Obama, though. Did he hire them as cheerleaders or something?

I agree that they seemed pro-Obama, but not too heavily. It was definitely noticeable though.

Is there any evidence that she learned from those mistakes?

Yes, actually, there is. Firstly, her proposal now is different. Secondly, in her first attempt she tried to practically railroad it down everyone's throat, whereas once she got in Congress she was more than willing to work with both sides of the aisle to get things done. She clearly learned a lesson, there, and, not only that, but applied it to her political life. Her record speaks to it.

Oh yeah, I thought she did well on the "ending the war on science" thing. That played really well with the professors (and many others) in the audience.

I'm a little curious as to how anyone can look at Hillary as "successful" on healthcare

Well, when you're a big government liberal like me, iarn, recognizing that getting the absolute biggest shared pool possible for a mandated insurance system is a good thing. :)

The main problem I have with both programs is that they work through tax credits, which aren't the best method for funding individuals and families. Wouldn't it just make more sense to cut everyone's taxes by the amount that buying into the plan would cost? (Cut 5% off income withholding and move it to healthcare?)

One other obvious hole I'm seeing is the failure to substantively cover (beyond Medicaid) people who are jobless, homeless, or otherwise unable to work and earning no income (for whatever reason).

Of course, if all the other relatively healthy people who use Medicaid in emergencies are on some other plan, that reduces the strain on the Medicaid system. However, it's not clear to me that this is really helping those people much beyond removing some of the congestion. I'd rather seen an out-and-out statement that the government will subsidize health insurance for the poorest Americans.

Unfortunately for her, the positive message is the one voters care about more.

I like that line. Can I use it?

I'm ready to dismiss the media now

Now?

Yeah . . . I know.

If this were a baseball game, Obama would be leading 5-4 in the seventh. This debate was the seventh inning and while Clinton drew a leadoff walk, she failed to knock in the run. The "Xerox" comment was her slugging attempt to swing for the fences but the crowd reaction showed she whiffed with her eyes closed. Why the press is saying this is not good for Clinton is that it knows the closer is warming up in the bullpen and he throws heat. This was her best chance to even the score and she was unable to do so.

If this were a baseball game, Obama would be leading 5-4 in the seventh. This debate was the seventh inning and while Clinton drew a leadoff walk, she failed to knock in the run. The "Xerox" comment was her slugging attempt to swing for the fences but the crowd reaction showed she whiffed with her eyes closed. Why the press is saying this is not good for Clinton is that it knows the closer is warming up in the bullpen and he throws heat. This was her best chance to even the score and she was unable to do so.

Ugh. I think the only thing more boring than the debates at this point is actually baseball...

I have not taken a college course since 2003 so I haven't been there in a while. I have one question to ask is plagiarism still an honors violation? This has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton. I just want to know because I have been unable to find an answer to that burning question. And it was a cheap shot by CNN to keep up the nonsense of plagiarism.

As far as I know, plagiarism is a serious matter at any college or university. However, whether it's an "honor" violation at any particular institution probably depends on their specific policies. I know it is at my school (UT Austin).

Plagiarism = US Senator J. Biden.

Not what our Evita said the last night.

I think the only thing more boring than the debates at this point is actually baseball...

OK so if this was the latest episode of America's Next Top Model, Hillary came in at the point where all she needed was to eat a live bug in order to show the other models that she can do the tough stuff that models do. But Hillary kept whining about how she didn't want to eat a bug and how unfair it was that she had to eat a bug and why didn't Barack have to eat a bug and when it was pointed out that Barack did eat a bug (a great big hissing cockroach with molé sauce drizzled all over it) she tried to start a rumour that Barack's hissing cockroach was actually a fake bug and then when that was disproven by a look at the videotape, Hillary claimed that Barack's friend, the chef Emeril, had precooked the hissing cockroach so that it didn't taste so icky. But then it turned out that Emeril wasn't even in town so he couldn't have precooked the cockroach and so that whole hissy fit about the hissing cockroach blew up in Hillary's face. So she chose to eat a tiny little ant, only she smuggled in a pocket-sized little portable battery-powered microwave oven and zapped the ant (caught on videotape in slo-mo; check it out on YouTube) and then didn't even swallow it.

So then Tyra Banks came on and totally gave both Barack and Hillary a jelly bean each and they both will be back next week. Cool huh?

Wow, dagda, you had me literally laughing at that one!

Ugh. I think the only thing more boring than the debates at this point is actually baseball...

Ugh. No. Thirteen Democratic debates later I'm pretty sure we have well exceded baseball, cricket, basketweaving, and earthworm racing.

The only interesting thing is what could have happened... when only the predictable has.

At least she answered the question. Obama, not so much. Sure, he didn't supply a hallmark card. He supplied a not-so-sob story.

Her final answer felt honest, and was moving. And I think it'll play well in Texas.

I find that stuff far from moving. I think when those questions come up, they should be introspective. It sounded like a Beauty pageant line. It could've been a great answer to a question about the world, not yourself.

Hillary's not answering if the super delegates should go with the popular with a straight answer worries me more. Last time Obama was asked about weakness, he said he had trouble staying organized and everyone else went on about the world.

Do I think Hillary wants to help people? Yes. Do I think she's in this more for herself then the American people? Yes.

Hillary's not answering if the super delegates should go with the popular with a straight answer worries me more.

1) Hillary doesn't know who the delegates will go for - no one does but the superdelegates

2) Being as the whole point of being a superdelegate is in direct relation to #1, it would be presumptuous to say how the superdelegates should vote

3) Regardless, superdelegates were never intended to go with the popular vote. That would make them redundant.

4) She said it would not be decided by superdelegates. This, coupled with Bill's statement that Hillary "must" win Texas and Ohio makes it seem, to me, that she is prepared to leave the race after March 4, if she loses either. Otherwise the Democratic party faces a bruising battle that could very well turn into civil war, leaving the path to the White House wide open for McCain.

Do I think Hillary wants to help people? Yes. Do I think she's in this more for herself then the American people? Yes.

See 4, above.

Hillary did not say she saw it as a test she saw it as a moment that defined her and essentially her support for mandated VA funding and her support of the troops.

Chasing -

Regardless, superdelegates were never intended to go with the popular vote. That would make them redundant.

With the historical turnouts, and the unbelievable numbers of first time voters, and the youth believing in politics again and coming out to vote for their future... If the SuperDelegates dont reflect the will of the people, it will bring down the party, and McCain will march right into the Whitehouse un-phased. This whole SuperDelegate rhetoric needs to stop. Even the very talk of the possibility doesn't help Hillary one bit.

Rob, you aren't wrong, the Superdelegates, especially this year (perhaps only this year) are a recipe for disaster. How would they bring that disaster about? By doing their job.

That's it. Just by doing what they're supposed to.

They are not supposed to automatically reflect their constituencies. That would be redundant. But if you don't like it, fine, change it - get rid of Superdelegates altogether. I wouldn't argue with you.

However you (not you personally, just the general 'you') cannot rightly say "If the Superdelegates don't vote the way their constituencies voted, they will have stolen the election" * AND * "Florida should not be able to seat its delegates".

Because hey, rules are rules, right?

Yes you are correct. It is most certainly the rules. But if their job, happens to be going against the people this year, it will turn the rules on its head. This year, the Superdelegates, better reflect the will of the people, or the rights of the voting public will feel as if it was trampled over. The SuperDelegates also have an obligation to do what is right for the party. Voting against the people in this particular election will be a party disaster. They can make the "Rules are rules" claim if they want. It will be at the demise of this election year for Democrats.

The problem with your theory is that Hillary is the choice of the Democrats who voted in the primaries and caucuses; Obama is the winner only if you count the votes of non-Democrats. who voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

"In terms of actual Democratic voters, the numbers from Super Tuesday are astonishing – and were, of course, ignored by the media. Out of over 12,100,000 votes cast by Democrats that day, Clinton beat Obama by nearly 7%, and just short of 837,000 votes. And if we include all the primaries that took place before Super Tuesday (NH, SC, MI, FL) the Clinton advantage among Democrats rises to 7.5%, and well over a million votes."

The will of which people, whose votes should count?

Since nobody but Republicans and Democrats have a viable horse in this race, EVERYONE's votes should count. The Republicans and the Democrats have a big enough monopoly on politics ... now you think Independent voters votes shouldn't count? Even if we're voting for a Democrat? Talk about ungrateful.

By "non-Democrats", of course, Richard means the black folks and young people who haven't voted at all before, plus the white, black and Hispanic voters who may actually shop around for the candidate that would be best for the country. And we can't have them choosing the nominee, because then (s)he won't be a controllable party hack that the lobbyists can have in their back pocket. And we certainly can't have that, now can we?

EVERYONE's votes should count.

They do. In November.

As well as they should, and do, count in the open primaries and open caucuses. All primaries and caucuses should be open. As an Independent, I would think you would agree with that.

You are an Independent, well, Ralph Nader is in/on the race again.

Yeah, I know he is. But I'm an Obama man. I have no party loyalty. As many seem to think about Barack, I think Nader is all ideas. Add to that he has no chance of winning ...

archangelrichard -

The will of which people, whose votes should count?

That's easy... The people who participated in a fair election. The people who followed the rules. Why is this not common sense? I am a Michigan Voter. The DNC said that the delegates would not count. Many people stayed home. Obama's name was not on the ballot. This is a silly argument, because if the situation was in reverse, Clinton supporters would most certainly cry foul.

Listen... Clinton has to win huge to take the election, but just like I told many of her supporters that the plagiarism charge will smack her in the face like a Soupy Sale's Cream pie, I am telling you that holding on to these flawed arguments is why she is doing so poorly. She and her supporters have not been able to match the correlation between this kind of rhetoric and tactics of seating unfair votes, and her 11 straight lop-sided losses. The theme of this election is Unity, Character and Message. Why do you think her negatives are so high? Keep scratching your head and asking yourself why as the negatives drop further. She showed just a touch of class in the last debate and received a standing ovation, but it still doesn't compute in her mind or her supporters. Seating delegates unfairly and making petty childish charges leaves a very sour taste in many mouths. But Just like Bush, she wont change course. Like a moth flies to a flame, she continues the script to doooom...

As an Independent, I would think you would agree with that.

Actually, I don't, quite. The Democratic and Republican parties are just that, parties, and they should nominate whomever they choose. If I want to take part in that process, then I am free to join their party. By not doing so, I can claim no right to help them make that choice, or force a choice upon them.

When I voted in the Democratic primary, here, I had to pledge that I was a Democrat. It was just a paragraph and I had to check it to accept it, much like you do with software agreements. Clearly I lied, as I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I voted anyway. I know very well that I was getting away with something.

Now, all that having been said, I think it's probably wise to allow open primaries (although I don't think caucuses should exist, period), because the party (either one) would no doubt like to have the independents on their side going in, and they're more likely to have that advantage if they give the independents a voice. But at some point it ceases to be a party at all, and is just a mob. That's why there are Superdelegates, in any case.

So, to their credit, someone who is a Democrat may end up in the White House, due to the help of independents like you, or me. But it may not be the Democrat they'd have chosen, themselves. And I can't help but think that, I don't know, criticizing their choice is a little....rude? Presumptuous? After all, we're only guests.

As I said, we're free to join their party. Or to form our own. Maybe without us, a Republican would be in the White House come next year. But, as I've said before, maybe they'd rather lose with their candidate than win with ours (or, in this case, yours)?

(The flip case could of course also be made, regarding independents, and the GOP - McCain being a good example of it, although primarily in previous years).

Well, it doesn't apply to me anyway, because when I registered to vote in Ohio in '04, I registered as a Democrat. So there is nothing to stop any of us from checking that box, whether we are being truthful or not. So it's really a moot point.

So it's really a moot point.

It is. Otherwise I suspect the thought police will be knocking at my door, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some penalty for lying, as I did - just one that's not enforced.

In Texas you don't register as anything. It's always interesting to hear how it's handled in other states.

I hate to say it but it seems like Hillary's getting campaign advice from George W. Bush. She should be doing so well, but she just keeps stepping in it and stepping in it and stepping in it. Either she had better step up or get to stepping.

Xerox. As in the "to make a photocopy". Same as everyone uses the word "Kleenex" instead of "tissue".

Her Xerox line wasn't as clever as she hoped it would be - you could tell she even realized it - but it was a hell of a lot more clever than your Kinkos comment.

Let me put Xerox in perspective for you. Back when I was a young girl my uncle who was ususlly a savvy investor did not really believe in Xerox and did not buy stock. Many years later he regretted this but he saw a company that would only make copies and nothing more.

That was pretty damn Clever Chasing. We may not agree choices for leadership, but I respect your wit.

When he got defensive he did seem in control. But the rest of the time he seemed to just sort of wander and hesitate a lot. Not to mention swivel in his chair non-stop.

A little hesitant in his voice for the first time, but, the man has to be tired campaigning.

A little hesitant in his voice for the first time, but, the man has to be tired campaigning.

Likewise Hillary. Although, in fairness, I heard he was recovering from a cold.

It was Obama who annoyed me with swiveling in his chair and wandering on answers.

I have to agree that I was somewhat annoyed by his occasional almost refusal to answer the question asked.

The last question Obama said his one defining moment was his whole life. He could not find one defining moment.

Hillary didn't do too well either, considering I would I hope that her biggest challenge would be dealing with a cheating husband.

Hillary didn't do too well either, considering I would I hope that her biggest challenge would be dealing with a cheating husband.

That's precisely what she implied, sorry.

I thought that was what she was implying, so I guess I have to agree that she did play it properly.

The last question Obama said his one defining moment was his whole life. He could not find one defining moment.

Oh noes? Not everyone has a single defining moment in their lives. I know I don't.

Oh noes? Not everyone has a single defining moment in their lives. I know I don't.

Whether he has none, or too many to count, it would be refreshing if he'd just said so.

That having been said, waking up one day and saying, "You know, I think I'll run for President" seems pretty defining, to me.

So does saying "You, know, I think I'll run for Senate." at either level, or "You know, I think I'll lead a life of public service." Or heck, even the example he used in one of his televised speeches of his first focus group or whatever having almost no turnout and wanting to quit, but not giving in. But I agree with you that I wish he'd just said there were too many to pick one, rather than his whole life.

Yes, I will not say that Obama does not want to help - this isn't about Obama - this comment is about Hillary (so hold your fire): but she does seem to want to help. Seems that way to me, anyway.

She may be honestly moved, but the prepared self depricating comparison of IED damage to a Veteran's face with political bombs against her was weak and contrived.

I guess that is why she left the education system in Arkansas 49th in the nation when she left and made a $100k off of a cattle rancher's work. Oh and lets not forget Billy Dale and the travel office debacle. It cost him his life savings to defend himself against her attack.

I guess that is why she left the education system in Arkansas 49th

She did? Do tell.

weak and contrived.

Yeah, I might have agreed, had she not herself said she'd taken her good fortune for granted.

said she'd taken her good fortune for granted.

Indeed Chasing. That was probably her best line -- delivering the same opportunities for Americans that she took for granted.

Although this line and a few others about the wealthy (of which she is a solid part of) always keeping working Americans down is a typical class warfare ploy she uses in her disjointed efforts to "unify" America. Nuts, I'm sounding like Eric :-)

To me Hillary has to separate from the conflict of interest of her husband and her income tax should be provided.

Please take off Caps Lock, it is really quite annoying and does not help others to agree with your opinion.

Please take off Caps Lock, it is really quite annoying and does not help others to agree with your opinion.

Yes! I was pro-Obama until this caps-locked comment, and now I think I'm going to vote for Ron Paul. ;)

If that is the case, continue with your ways joshuadurrell! Ron Paul 2008! :D :P

prompt I am leaning towards Ron Paul. Texas as I write this is protesting the start of the NAFTA superhighway. With any other candidate we will have a president that will bend to the will of the global corporations. I got a wake up call last night!

NAFTA superhighway

It's the Trans-Texas Corridor, which is supposed to eventually be a network of modern highways, coupled with rail and telecommunications corridors, and is only related to NAFTA in that Texas is next to Mexico and does much trade with it. Until all the other states on up to Canada build their own, and connect them (and I've heard no such proposal from any of them), it's no "NAFTA superhighway".

Frankly I'll be glad that all the freight will bypass my city, leaving I-35 a little less congested, and safer, and freeing rail lines for light rail.

Chasing it is the start of the North American Union. This is the message that Ron Paul and others like him are trying to get out. Please go look up CFR/NAU. My husband believes it too. He said he has had an inkling of it for sometime now. It makes sense to me. He use to have harsh comments to make after companies moved to Mexico but he longer has them. He works for a Canadian company that is very global.

Chasing it is the start of the North American Union.

No such thing. Canada certainly doesn't want much to do with us, politically, nor really does Mexico. And, in any case, there are three times as many US citizens as there are Mexicans, we've got a world-wide (if momentarily weakened) currency (try using a peso anywhere but Mexico), a vastly larger economy, and a vastly superior military.

Why on Earth would they want to join us, just to be swamped? In any case, it would undermine American economic strength - those companies in Mexico (maquiladoras) - went there for cheap labor, and it is cheap immigrant labor that keeps prices down in the US (as it does, by the way, in China). Were the economies to merge, we'd no longer be able to underpay Mexicans in order to get cheap crap at WalMart, and the prices of produce would go through the roof.

Texas is Texas. Compare it to the rest of the nation at your peril.

It is coming any there is little anyone can do about it! All the major players in the primaries back it!

Of course. Obama fans who support him have no minds. But all of the people against him, saying the same word have a unique outlook. ;)

Yes, and she will get a nasty letter from a trademark lawyer very soon, I predict. As will whoever is in charge of infringing on McDonald's Big Mac trademark over in the McCain camp. So what do you want America, "plagiarists" or trademark infringers running the country?

I seriously doubt that qualifies as trademark infringement, and everyone on Earth knows what it means.

Sometimes Hillary looks like some glassy-eyed little girlie way out there on Mensa Island…

You say that like it were a bad thing.

Hetep and Respect EPH289, if you are in the ring with a fighter that just won 12 straight by knock out, You have to knock him out to win.

she gained not my support but more of my respect.

I agree she made a very respectful showing

Oh, no, our Evita has no class and is full of the only rhetoric, she avoided direct questions and went back to the universal health care. We have Medicaid already.

Why can't you just call her Hillary? Every time you use a different name for her I have to go look it up, and most of the time it still doesn't make too much sense to me :(

Because the similarity of Hillary with the late Evita Peron is unique.

The same story of fighting for the poor, the children, the Vets. However, her life of luxury for her and her daughter are obvious. I know how much cost the pantsuits that she wears and the jewelry and even when Chelsey dressed very tone down I know that it's expensive.

Hillary is our Evita Peron.

We have Medicaid already.

My crystal ball tells me....wait....wait...ok, the mists are clearing up now...

It's telling me that....yes, it's telling me that you are not on Medicaid.

Whew! And to think, I never believed in the occult until just now.

I am for covering the "43,000,000 millions uninsured", et al. Period.

Let us alone because I don't want Universal Health Care and Obama knows that he can't provide the same Rolls that he has in the Senate that I have.

Baloney, rotten, I don't buy it.

A draw in this case is actually an Obama win. To win she would have needed to stop his momentum. She didn't do that.

She didn't do that.

With all due respect, it's entirely too soon to tell that.

It's too early for post-debate polling to have been completed. We'll probably know Monday or Tuesday if there's been movement.

Because the similarity of Hillary with the late Evita Peron is unique.

No, it's really not. A comparison to Cristina Fernandez would be more appropriate, and even then, it's a stretch.

When a candidate is slightly behind

Entering the debate, actually, she was slightly ahead in both Texas and Ohio.

It was a very awkward moment when she said "John McCain doesn't take E-Marks, but he supported George Bush's War that has cost us Billions of dollars" It was a glimpse at how that argument will not work for her. I mean... when she said it.. Her vote was the very first thing that came to mind. It was a visual example of what Obama has been talking about.

Our Evita is on record why she supported the war in Iraq. The Clintons still aren't realize that their worst enemy is the internet.

And our Evita remembered when she went with McCain for the inauguration of a hospital? for the Veterans.

Hillary was kinder to John McCain than to Obama.

It's probably why she refers to him as her very good friend, she can crawl with the best of the political snakes and can strike without notice.

Barack must always keep his "Political" guards up and not be fooled by her coyness, because it's then when she will strike with vengeance!.(psssssssssss)

Yeah... There is always strategy brewing in the Clinton camp, but I must say that I was shocked that she was saying more of the same in the debate. It was very troublesome for her when Barack started early in debunking her "Get Real" message. Which I would guess was a major part of her debate strategy that evening. He is a good Counter-puncher. It is a wonderful skill to have when you are in the lead.

And our Evita

If she's "Our Evita", can you be our "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle"? I mean, if we're going to make meaningless comparisons, and all...?

Senator Hillary Clinton did not use Iraqi vets for her own purposes. She has signed the same resolution I have. She supports mandated funding for the VA. Many of Cook County, IL elected officials have signed on to this resolution as well but Obama has not signed this resolution. It is a grassroots movement one I recognized and rallied against 9 years ago! There is even local paper coverage in the archives of The Wichita Eagle about my rallies and my support of vets.

The Iraqi vets are returning to an underfunded VA. It in most cases gives subpar medical care. One example of this I was shuffled between doctors, appointments were constantly cancelled and it took three month before I got a new PCP (second time this has happened). The VA is supposed to report lab tests to me they did not and one they forgot to report to me could have cost me a kidney and I have diabetes. The Behavioral Health Department here in Wichita, KS has been so overwhelmed by the returning vets and their psychiatric problems they are hiring 22 new people and building an addition to their wing.

Do not even begin to suggest she is using them for her own purposes. Her staff helps vets back in New York with their medical problems. And there are very few other Senators who stand out in my mind that do this. This first one that comes to mind is Senator Patty Murray of WA and then Senator Sam Brownback of KS.

It is my contention that you are using Iraqi vets for your own purposes and that is bashing Senator Clinton

You people are so single minded. I will say this one more time, I have a firend who was on the Hill during the briefings (ones racked with lies) that said the faces on Congressional members were white and ashen. The United States was shattered at I believe we wanted to get all terrorists at the time. They had been scared to death. It is easy for Obama to say he did not support the war but he was not privy to thse briefings and neither were you or I. It is easy for any of us to say we did not support the war. I did not but I certainly wanted to invade Afghanistan en force to get OBL.

Many of our troops went to Iraq and Afghanistan ill prepared for urban guerilla war. They lacked proper equipment and at one point the Army was so short handed other branches of the military were being drafted to do guerilla warfare. The training for guerilla warfare was slim to none.

Since it was obvious to me and many others that we were going to be there for awhile I wanted my representatives in Congress to vote for the funding. I wanted to make the sure the money was there so we didn't lose because we underfunded them like we do the VA. I would certainly hope that Congress would keep funding the troops too! They are not necessarily funding the war but they are funding our troops.

It is easy for Obama to say he did not support the war but he was not privy to thse briefings and neither were you or I. It is easy for any of us to say we did not support the war. I did not but I certainly wanted to invade Afghanistan en force to get OBL.

Hmmmm, I was not in the meetings, true. The difference is I looked all of this info up on damned Google, they couldn't even do that. Funny how you say "How could she know? we were all scared!" well, half the Nation wasn't. The rational people in this Nation were not scared, certainly not scared enough to send kids to die so we could falsely feel safer. We knew not to go to war, but then again, we have no political agenda. WE knew better! WE called them out on their lies! SHE voted with the worst administration in US history. Obama didn't. How about that.

That's right, Obama didn't ... because he wasn't there! He was in the Illinois state senate. Before you go on making ridiculous claims, why not tell us ALL of the Democratic Senators who voted for that resolution.

81 Democrats in the house and 29 Democratic senators (58% of the Democratic Senators) voted FOR the resolution.

Why not use the facts - because they don't agree with you (Oooooops!)

why not tell us ALL of the Democratic Senators who voted for that resolution

They aren't running for President.

29 Democratic senators (58% of the Democratic Senators) voted FOR the resolution.

They're what's known as "the 29 Democratic senators who will never be president." They were warned! Repeatedly! I watched Robert Byrd shake his little Constitution at them and tell them not to do it. Let them stay in the Senate and atone for their mistake. It is grievous and needful of years of penance. But the only way any of them will ever see the inside of the White House is on the tourists' walkthrough with the rest of us.

The hands of the US Senator Byrd are shaking always w/or/w/o the Constitution. A real barrel of pork for his State.

US Senator Byrd are shaking always w/or/w/o the Constitution.

Oh, come on. Leave Byrd alone. The man deserves respect. He's old as hell and keeps on going, keeps on serving. That's commendable. Not to mention, he can admit to his mistakes. That's an admirable trait in anyone.

Why not Senator Byrd?

His history and appearance on TV was noticeable.

I think West Virginia will rename itself Byrdland once he passes. It will end the confusion with Virginia and move them up much further in the list of states. Which will be helpful in the Miss America contest. By the time they got to Miss West Virginia in the old days, she often wasn't anymore.

81 Democrats in the house and 29 Democratic senators (58% of the Democratic Senators) voted FOR the resolution.

That's the problem with Hillary Clinton, thanks for making my point. She'd jump off a bridge if 81 other Democrats did it too. That's not a virtue. It's herd mentality. We need someone who can think without help.

McCain is suffering with the same mentality of late, voting not to ban torture when he was clearly against it a recent as a few weeks ago. He sold out his conscience.

exactly. when they all voted for this, they were under the impression that the country was going more Conservative, so Hillary jumped on the bandwagon and was pandering to "Middle America" by trying to seem tough on terrorists, not thinking about how this would look to the liberal and middle base. She assumed that she had the votes of liberals, women, and blacks locked down, and that isn't the case.

IR,

Don't you see that a candidate/nominee can't paint himself in a corner if President?

Obama for example has to be careful how he shapes our security and he better be ready what is he going to sell.

Hillary hasn't started yet about the issue.

IR, Don't you see that a candidate/nominee can't paint himself in a corner if President?

Yes I can definitely see your point, except that the people who voted for him and made him the front runner, did so after he clearly stated his views against water-boarding. The only people who are for torture is the extreme hard right. Not the working class republican masses and independents. Changing his tune on something like that shows a lack of moral conviction which is why he was so beloved in the past. The only people that hate McCain is the Corporate Conservatives, and the Neo-con Right. But they use the bully pulpit of the media to sway others against him. It didn't work this time. But he is pandering to them anyway. I could have given him a pass on the Bush tax cuts, but Torture??? After his first hand experience??? Indefensible.

but Torture??? After his first hand experience??? Indefensible.

Exactly. It makes me sick that I was pulling for him in 2000. If Rove hadn't ... Roved him, for lack of a better term, I'd have voted for him in the general election in 2000. I see I would have been making a mistake.

I believe people who come out in favor of torture should try it themselves. Strap em down, wet em up and get em talking. Otherwise, shut up about torturing other people. If you can't stand the moisture, get out of the torture chamber!

Yeah - I agree with you.

However, isn't that supposed to happen with police allocated with tasers? Yet they still abuse them.

Maybe that's only in Britain...

Here we tase our reporters. Definitely explains our supine media.

Xerox (trade mark) a pioneer in the copying machines and easy to say than the other brands.

Free ad, btw.

You know what I have in the past years when I worked said let me xerox that for you. Xerox never sued. Your comments are pointless and inane.

Hey, there is irony there . . . sorry you missed it.