nanne:

The message that she had been bringing change for 35 years is one she should drop ASAP IMO because it comes off a bit desperate, but that is my perception again.

Wasn't the quote something like

"We've had 35 years of change now?"

Semantic disaster clean-up on aisle 1 please.

Thanks  nanne for an excellent sum up of the debate.

I do believe the Democrats were just more engaged in the problems the next president would face as you say because as I see it, they have a lot more at stake  -- the "disadvantage" of non-incumbents if you like.

Edwards and Richardson had great nights last night.  Richardson came across as calm and reasonable.  Edwards had a bit more fire in him than usual.

Clinton had good and bad moments.  Her response to the question on likability was cute, and the little exchange between she and Obama that followed, even more so.  It was sort of girlie, but I think it helped to remind people that, yes, she's not a robot.

Obama was successful last night by not being rattled.  He needed to stay calm and avoid a big fuck-up, and he did so.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

At this stage, Hillary is running scared. A rerun of the national polls after New Hampshire will give us a better idea if Hillary's reversion to the "change" message resonates, she her campaign thus far has been all about experience (in the same old Washington corporate run politics).

I've only seen the short excerpt of the debate posted here and it says two things to me.  Edwards took up most of the airtime to present himself as Obama's no. 2 - noting minor differences but basically saying I'm on your (change) team.  Obama didn't really acknowledge him in any way.

Hilary responded by saying that it is one thing to talk about change and quite another to actual do it, and that she's been doing it for 35 years - and giving some concrete examples that have helped real people in New Hampshire.

Why would you vote for Edwards based on his wordy excerpt here in which he basically endorsed Obama?  He is defining himself out of the race.

It's now about Obama rhetoric of change against Clinton track record - and however you might interpret that.

OK -I'm reading a lot into one short exchange, but if this is the bit that is making headlines, then it isn't doing Edwards any favours.

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

If you're using Firefox, you can download TribExt and use the nifty Ctrl-Shift-C to insert properly formatted quotations automagically.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

Well, we don't have to help shape that reality by providing yet another Edwards-free headline

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

Interesting take there Helen - helpful to a European.

And I do think you just may be right.

Money and the media (who do you think owns the American media) determined who the "challenger" will be.  And frankly, once you get past the rhetoric, you'll find that Obama has been brinking deeply from economic policy advice of the neo-liberal Hamilton Project.  He gave the keynote speech at their lauch for chrissakes.

And the economic advice that they have is that the answer  financial liberalism with government interventions only where needed to sustain the status quo.  Most damningly, Obama's been parroting the idea that the reason that American workers are losing there jobs is because they are uneducated, and that if we invest in education everything will be better.  The problem is that this decade had been one where job losses have been occurring among the college educated.

After all if a person who's earned a college degree in IT can't compete, how can you really say  that the issue here is education.  It's blaming the victim on Obama's part, and it's the reason that he's dangerous.  Because he gets a pass on these things tha Clinton does not. I deal with university aged students daily, and they all think that when they leave university, their education will assure them a good job.  They buy the myth that people who are unemployed are lazy and uneducated.

These are the people most fervent in their support for Obama, people who don't understand that their education doesn't change the fact that there are those who live by wealth and those who live by work.  And their education (indoctrination) leads them to believe they will belong to the former group rather than the latter once they graduate.  

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

Hillary will make history as the first woman President of the United States.  No small thing and long overdue.  I have no doubt she will be a capable and skilled president.  But she is very much of the breed which now infests Washington.  Far, far better than anyone the Republicans have to offer, but entrenched in the same corporatist power structure that has feathered its own nest with little regard for the welfare of the people for as long as I can remember.

Barack will make similar history as our first black President.  Whatever else, it would mean a tectonic shift in the meaning of race in our culture.  I think he is not quite the insider that Hillary is, but as much in the go along to get along mold.  And I'm afraid his race will constrain his ability to bring any meaningful change on any issue that could be even remotely construed as driven by racial considerations.  There are a whole raft of such issues, from immigration to poverty to very status of brown people as second class citizens that need serious attention.  Yet he more than any of the others would have to tread very softly, ironically, because of his identity.

John Edwards is, to my mind, the only authentic populist in the race.  He has thrown down the gauntlet to the existing power structure in Washington.  He speaks clearly and passionately about the toxic influence of corporate money on our democracy, of corporate lobbyists on our government.  He speaks I think from his heart about the plight of the truly poor and the shrinking middle class, the shameful lack of health care for too many of our citizens, the unfair advantages of wealth and privilege at the expense of the rest of us.  I think he would be right at home here on ET.  I think he means what he says about taking on the special interests and the entrenched power structure.  I think he will shake up that structure and at least try to return power to the people.  Whether he can succeed is another question entirely, but at least he will try.  Which is more than I really expect from the others.

Many doubt his authenticity and his sincerity when he talks of these things.  I believe him.  I think he has not forgotten where he came from.  He speaks to my heart.  His story is compelling.  Where he comes from and who he is as a person is much closer to me personally than any of the others.  Hillary and Barack are Ivy League.  John is one of us.

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

So all the pensioners voting for Hillary's votes might be wasted?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

comfy chairs    Yup.  tick that off

industrial buckets of popcorn.  Sounds good.  Make mine with extra salt and butter, please

plenty of throat medicine, to deal with the damage from cackling evily as it all kicks off?  I prefer to chortle with glee, snicker with delight, and laugh merrily.  YMMV but it saves the cost of the throat medicine.

No one could have predicted

Oh the shadenfreude!  Don't cackle too soon.  It's looking increasingly unlikely, but the same could happen to the dems with the super delegates deciding the issue...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

verasoie has a pretty good diary on Kos:  The elephant in the room: a brokered (Republican) convention.

No one could have predicted

That's what has been so strange:  Obama's stripping voters from Clinton, not Edwards or Richardson.  It makes sense, historically, because the #1 and #2 in Iowa usually get a bump while #3 slips a bit, but I expected Clinton's support to be more solid than the others.  Clinton's problem is that she hasn't slipped a bit, but rather that she's plunging, and that's why I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to see Edwards take second place in New Hampshire, which would be an incredible upset for him, as a southern candidate (and big-time underdog) in New England up against the Clinton Machine.

If I'm a higher-up in the Obama campaign, I'm seriously thinking about telling some of my precinct captains to try to push some folks to Edwards, because a third-place finish for Clinton here would almost undoubtedly be the end.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

Check out the favorability ratings on the top three, too.  Clinton has fallen quite a bit, getting a 75% approval from Dems, while Obama's in the low-90s and Edwards is in the high-80s.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.