Are you outraged... appalled... that Hillary was cheered and others booed last night?

[wyldwolf]

Did you complain when the audience was stacked against Sen. Clinton during the Yearly KOS debate and the Take Back America conference and people on DU gleefully reported she was booed at them while others were cheered?

[Selatius]

1. All I can say is people should get used to it. Life isn't pleasant.

What matters is if the person was on point, whether the person communicated clearly and showed knowledge as well as passion for the subject at hand.

[struggle4progress]

102. Local audiences should be unobtrusive during nationally televised debates: people watch to hear

the candidates, not to learn what local contingent of yahoos is best at silencing folk

[still_one]

2. no, however, the modarators should not have cooled the audience in either case

become a cheering or booing section

Too much of a circus atmosphere, and distracts from the issues in my view

[wyldwolf]

3. that may be true... but I don't recall anyone making that point when Clinton was booed.

[Bongo Prophet]

33. In general, I think it is rude and distracting, no matter which candidate

I seem to remember SOME posts that were against the booing, but yeah, many cheered it at the time.
I am sorry that it seems to you that not ANYONE made that point - it explains a lot, and I empathize with the feelings of unfairness, as I was a Kerry supporter in 03. But I NEVER hated on Dean, (and support him in his DNC position, or Clark or Edwards or Mosely-Braun or Sharpton or Gephart. Even while taking hits from their supporters, I never replied in kind. Higher principles, kind of like the candidate I supported.

I did make fun of "Joementum" however - I mean, come on, joe-mentum? Asking for it :)
But I wouldn't boo him in public.
Now, Rove or Norquist, I might break that rule, but more likely to shun such an event.


You just gotta keep making the POSITIVE case for your candidate, and try to convince those you can, I guess.
Whoever our candidate is, has my vote. I just want them to be tested, but not battered, to best fight the GOP.

[still_one]

94. Yup, you are correct, and that was wrong also.

I mixed up my words a little in my original post, but you got the just of what I was trying to say

[eleny]

4. It drags up the question of them being planted

[wyldwolf]

6. although that's been debunked

The DNC is in charge of the audience and each candidate is given an equal number of tickets.

[sufrommich]

20. Out of curiosity, where does that info come from?

If it's verifiable,than there are an awful lot of posters here who need to be better informed.

[eleny]

24. it doesn't have to be verified to be asked

But Ed Schultz already brought it up this morning on the radio. I expect that it will be asked if nothing but to hurt her.

[eleny]

28. Her supporters who booed did not do her proud

Whoever they were, they responded with precision, imo. Not good as they provided fodder.

[stranger81]

37. the questions were planted -- why wouldn't the audience be as well? [n/t]

[wyldwolf]

71. Because she doesn't control the debate setting?

[JTFrog]

74. No her Nevada campaign chairman's father does.

But to be fair, Harry didn't want his son to openly endorse her yet.

http://politics.lasvegassun.com/2007/02/marriage_of_con.html

[wyldwolf]

77. so?

The DNC controls the audience and each candidate is given the same number of tickets to pass out to supporters. :shrug:

[Capn Sunshine]

91. well, bunk it again-here's an on-ground report.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/16/32040/765
Not a single incident , which was NOT what is at issue.

[Texas_Kat]

7. NOT, FHA from a DUer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3725977

[eleny]

30. "heckler" - singular

I heard more than one voice. At times it was a chorus.

[Texas_Kat]

40. Read the thread

The audience wasn't having any of it. They were applauding all the candidates even if they weren't 'supporters' and expressing displeasure at gratutious attacks.

Or did you think that Biden, Kucinich and Dodd had the audience filled with their people?

[SaveElmer]

8. Of course they were planted...

Every campaign was given a set of tickets...and surprise surprise...the campaigns distributed them to supporters...

Scandalous!!!!!!!!

[Cameron27]

5. They had it coming, so I was thrilled.

[durrrty libby]

83. Me too. I loved it. It was great fun

[riqster]

9. Nobody booed Kooch.

In fact, he got at least one standing O.

[Cameron27]

15. Dennis was great

he's always great in these debates, which is amazing considering the amount of time they give him.

[kenfrequed]

103. Agreed

In many of these 2 hour debates he is given around 5 minutes. Oddly the various media outlets alot time according to opinion polls. Which of course is the exact opposite of what a debate is intended to do.

Sigh

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. sore losers.

[cobalt1999]

11. A good politician is able to handle a hostile audience.

Bill Clinton & Reagan (have to give him his props there) were masters at it.

Anyone whining about the audience here or for the anti-Hillary audiences, should instead direct their outrage at the candidate for not anticipating nor adapting.

[JDPriestly]

52. Edwards handled the booing very well. He passed the test.

Listen to the tapes. http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/15/201012/05

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. As usual, I'll take option "C"

The debate was a pointless waste of time, and I don't care.

[ihavenobias]

13. Mildly annoyed maybe

but only because the candidates need to do a better job of highlighting the incredible about of money Hillary has taken from special interest groups like the defense industry (interestingly she's the most hawkish, coincidence I'm sure).

Or maybe they should bring up that she's taken more money from the health care industry than any other candidate, democrat *or* republican. And she's to be trusted to represent *our* interests on health care?

Is she somehow immune to the influence of money? And by the way, what she did in the 90's with regard to health care is now irrelevant in the context of all that money.

Sadly, until we have publicly funded elections we'll see more and more Hillary types. Look, she's an intelligent, articulate person and a cunning politician. But so are most (or at least some) of the other candidates.

And even if I accept the idea that she has the best ideas (which I don't on most issues, she's either tied or lower down the list IMO on issues like Iraq/Iran/social security/health care, etc.) I simply don't trust her to really *act* on them once elected precisely because of that special interest influence.

Please understand that I have NOTHING personally against Hillary. I'm not a "Hillary Hater", rather, I'm a hater of the devastating influence of special interest money and its deleterious effects on our democracy. I'd like to think anyone who identifies themselves as liberal, progressive or a democrat (hell, as an American) would agree.

[Cameron27]

21. That would open up questions about the bundled

money that Edwards has taken, the fact that the biggest contributers to his campaign came from hedge fund employees and trial attorneys:

"Mr. Edwards also developed mutually beneficial relationships with public and private institutions. He founded the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, which provided him with a platform. In return, he raised $3 million to sustain it. He was hired by the Fortress Investment Group, a New York hedge fund, to “develop investment opportunities,” according to a 2005 Fortress news release. That led to meetings with such people as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany; Henry Kravis, founder of KKR, one of Wall Street’s most successful investment funds; and the chief executives of General Electric, Citigroup, Coca-Cola and DaimlerChrysler."

“Fortress became a vehicle for foreign travel,” Mr. Turlington said, “but it was also a way to spend more time with sophisticated financial people.”

The Edwards campaign declined to disclose the amounts raised or spent by the two similarly-named nonprofit agencies — the Center for Promise and Opportunity and the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation — since their 2005 tax filings, which are the most recent to have been filed.

snip: ...the line between a bona fide charity and a political campaign is often fuzzy, said Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees nonprofit agencies.

“I can’t say that what Mr. Edwards did was wrong,” Mr. Owens said. “But he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it. But he was close enough that if a wind was blowing hard, he’d fall over it.”

snip: Of the explicitly political entities, Mr. Edwards’ OneAmerica Committee 527 organization allowed donors to give without limitations. The money was transferred to his leadership political action committee. Leadership committees were initially created to allow prominent politicians to raise money for distribution to needy office-seekers. But Mr. Edwards spent the entire $2.7 million he raised for OneAmerica, including $532,000 raised by the 527, on himself, an increasingly common trend among politicians.

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[ihavenobias]

27. Have At It

If you want to compare who is more influenced by special interest money, balance positions and policy proposals versus where and how much they are each getting.

Edwards isn't perfect, but I don't see Hillary coming out strong against unfair trade, public funding of elections, a dramatic increase in the minimum wage (not to mention her *relative* hawkishness WRT to Iran).

Hillary is *currently* influenced by her special interests, as evidenced by all that defense industry money (and again, notice her *relatively* hawkish positions) and her health care plan (the most private insurance friendly of the Big 3 plans), probably because she's received more money from the health care industry than ANY other candidate, democrat or republican.

I have to balance who is the most populist and least influenced by special interest money (particularly on critical issues like defense and health care) with who can win. When I balance all three of those things, Edwards wins overall.

Again, it's not just special interests period, it's *which* special interests and *how much money*. Hillary comes out on bottom by far in that regard, and there's really no debate on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs8YFaQCD0k

[Cameron27]

35. Do you have a breakdown of the money

she's received from the health care industry? All Edwards has is rhetoric and most of it is 180 degrees away from the way he voted when he had the chance.

As far as his generalized anti-lobby stance:

EDWARDS: Some Lobbyists Are Just More Equal Than Others

Still reporting from SEIU's conference, TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta was amused to hear John Edwards 'jazzing up' conventioners for the SEIU's 'Lobby Day'. Franke-Ruta blogs: "John Edwards has made it very clear that he thinks lobbyists are the bane of the American political system, and will prevent needed healthcare reform. ...The SEIU has worked with: Bond & Co.; Clark & Weinstock; Colling Murphy Swift Hynes Selfridge LLC; Robert Giroux; Jennings Policy Strategies; the Nueva Vista Group; Bill Lynch Associates; and Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale. ... I seriously doubt that the Edwards campaign has a problem with any of this SEIU activity, either, despite his anti-lobbying stance."

http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/09/919_why_the_tas.html

No one's squeaky clean in this election, and Edwards talks from both sides of his mouth.

[ihavenobias]

38. Be Careful What You Ask For

Great, now I have to spend all day posting a zillion links? At least take the time to check them out.

Ok, how about (*emphasis* added by me):


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

Notice the percentages when it comes to money from business vs money from labor in the link above (breakdown of all candidates).

But hey, why stop there:

"...is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- ***more than anyone else currently in the Senate***? That makes Jay Rockefeller's contributions look like abject chicken feed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-a-bundle_b_70052.html?load=1&page=2

And speaking of bundling (I can't imagine there has been *less* bundling since May):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4033.html

Again, no one is perfect but you have to look at where the money is coming from *and* how much.

More Money = More Special Interest Influence

[Cameron27]

49. Where's the breakdown of bundled money for Edwards?

"Under current reporting rules, there is no way of determining that a bundler has brought in big bucks for a candidate; all that would show up on campaign filings would be the bundler’s own contributions. Yet candidates are as indebted to the $1 million bundler as they are to the $1 million check writer."

snip: "Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) balked at giving out these details last time around; his campaign said that at this point it was committing only to disclose what’s legally required."

Washington Post 2/5/07

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400955.html

Obama, for example, about whom the public knows relatively little, is running as an idealistic candidate and has made a flat promise to disclose the names of bundlers and other top contributors. Clinton, the fundraising leader among Democrats, said she would comply with the law — which appears to be silent on the subject of disclosing bundlers’ names.

snip: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said he would not track bundled contributions and thus could not disclose them. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to disclose any bundling activities, according to a spokeswoman.

Los Angeles Times 2/9/07

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bundle9feb09,1,1042958.story


In 1998, John Edwards ran for Senate as a sort of ‘Snow White,’ as a fresh face who said he wasn’t going to take one penny from PAC’s and special interest because it was wrong. He said, instead, he would spend his own money to get elected.

Just a few days ago, the newspapers reported that after he got elected, from 2001 to 2005, Edwards took more trips on corporate jets than anyone in Congress – more even than the President. Whatever happened to not taking money from special interests?

What is the ‘moral’ difference between taking cash on the barrel head from a special interest, and having a conglomerate – in Edward’s case Archer Daniels Midland was one – crank up its corporate jet and fly him from, say, Washington to Los Angeles. According to newspapers, all Mr. Edwards had to reimburse Archer Daniels Midland for the use of their jet was the cost of a first class ticket. According to the New York Times (March 8, 2006), experts say the real costs could run five time the first class fare or more.

Mr. Edwards paid those corporations $313,749 (in first class fares) for flying in their jets. Do the math. If the New York Times is correct these corporations and special interests put, in effect, the equivalent of $1.2 million into Mr. Edwards’ coffers. How ‘moral’ was it of Mr. Edwards to take $1.2 million, roughly, from corporations and special interests while he was serving in the United States Senate?

My suspicion is Mr. Edwards may have discovered ‘morality’ the same way he discovered poverty. How was that? My guess is back during his presidential campaign someone looked at a poll and told Edwards, ‘Eureka, John, we have found an issue you take no risk at all speaking out on.’ Because who, from George Bush to Osama bin Laden, was going to criticize John Edwards for being against poverty?

http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ArticleView/mid/364/articleId/37/Morality-Politics-and-John-Edwards.aspx

I can keep googling for more info all day, but as I've said, nobody's squeaky clean, and Edwards talks out of both sides of his mouth.

[ihavenobias]

55. Ok

See we're going to post dueling articles all day (although things may have changed since February, look at the first link I posted regarding disclosure, Hillary had a MUCH higher rate of "no disclosure" regarding her funds).

The bottom line is that Edwards has a MUCH more populist, pro middle class message and he's taken FAR LESS money. And again, from crucial industries like health care and defense.

Also, I don't see Hillary speaking out for public funding of elections and paper ballots, do you? These are critical issues the fundamentally determine the quality of our candidates and our very democracy.

How about trade? How about her social security 'can't raise the social security cap' because it would hit the top 6% of Americans too hard? It's SO not populist to the point of absurdity.

Millions of jobs have been lost and wages and benefits have stagnated while the upper crust has gotten richer and richer. What exactly is Hillary proposing that changes this?

And can you acknowledge that the fact that Hillary has taken MILLIONS and MILLIONS more dollars from special interest groups, meaning she is at least theoretically more beholden to special interests than any other candidate? Or do you really think all of that money has no influence?

[Cameron27]

58. All I see from John Edwards is talk

nothing in his past voting record, or the way he lives his life leads me to believe that he's a true populist in the way that Dennis Kucinich is.

You're the one in fantasyland if you're willing to ignore every single vote that sits in stark contrast to what John Edwards is preaching now. It's been only a few years since he cast those votes and there are too many to account for and to apologize for, for me to believe that his sudden transformation is real.

That's it, there's no way we're going to agree, and I don't like wasting my time.

[ihavenobias]

61. Cheap Shot

The way he lives his life? Is that based on some cheap talking point about about Edwards not caring about poor middle/middle class people because he is not poor/middle class?

FYI, FDR was THE single most economically progressive president in our history and he was RICH. Not Edwards Rich, *filthy* rich. Teddy Roosevelt the 'trust buster' was also quite wealthy (and I don't see Hillary shopping at the thrift store, but regardless, that's entirely irrelevant).

And once again, I have a 'what have you done for me lately' attitude rather than living off past reputation. I'm sure Hillary WAS a strong fighter for great health care in the early 90's, *prior to all that special interest money*. Now she has the worst, watered down plan of all the major candidates and no amount of pointing to *the past* changes the present (or what she'll do in the future).

[Cameron27]

64. Not a cheap shot

I was talking about his habit of hopping on his buddies' corporate jets, not the size of his house, or the size of his wallet.

[ihavenobias]

65. Right

Because Hillary lives in a shack, shops at the thrift store, and rides on horseback everywhere.

This is a complete red herring on your part, especially in light of the fact that I pointed out FDR (most progressive president for the poor/middle class in history) had a LOT more money than Edwards has. Had there been jets at the time I don't imagine he'd have avoided them entirely.

[Cameron27]

67. Hillary isn't running as a populist,

Hillary isn't throwing mud at Edwards for his bundled money, or the millions he's saved in this campaign, but doesn't have to account for, by using his friend's corporate jets to crisscross the country, Hillary hasn't accused Edwards of being part of the system of corruption in Washington. Edwards on the other hand has, and that's the whole point. Hypocrisy.

[ihavenobias]

69. See my other post

I summed it up there.

All of the major candidates have some level of hypocrisy (again, thanks largely to no publicly funded elections) but it's a matter of degree.

And you saying basically "well, Hillary isn't running as someone who wants to restore and improve conditions for the poor and middle class" (which is exactly what is implied when you say "she's not running as a populist") is dead on.

I couldn't agree with you more and it's exactly why she wouldn't get my vote *even if* she wasn't drowning in special interest money.

Again, you bring up the jets? For the third time, it doesn't matter. Hillary never rides in a jet? Gore never rides in a jet? They all live in mud huts except for Edwards? Give me a break.

Just because someone isn't middle class doesn't mean they can't empathize and improve conditions for the middle class. History (as I've pointed out more than once) shows us that quite clearly.

[Cameron27]

73. Is Hillary getting a break in the cost of a private jet?

Is Hillary or anyone else saving millions in campaign costs that don't have to be accounted for, by using her friends jets? That's why I keep bringing up corporate jets.

I'm not going to reply to you again, but I'll end by saying that I firmly believe that Clinton, and Obama, and Biden, and Dodd, and Kucinich, and Richardson are all as dedicated or even more dedicated as John Edwards, to turning this country around, helping the poor and the middle class, cleaning up our foreign policy, providing universal health care, and everything else you lay at the feet of John Edwards.

I'm finished, goodbye.

[ihavenobias]

75. Goodbye

It's good to see broad claims about how much better every OTHER candidate would be for the middle class, health care and foreign policy without any pesky evidence or comparison of policy (or even stated stance, as I know we can't spend all day debating online) is sufficient in your mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs8YFaQCD0k

[bvar22]

89. Well Done, ihavenobias.

Welcome to DU.

You are a refreshing model of patience, and decorum.
Patiently responding to rumor, propaganda, nonsense, and logical fallacy with reason, facts, logic, and references!

:patriot:

[ihavenobias]

93. Thanks

It's sad and disheartening to me that people want so desperately to be right that they would make the absurd and outrageous (by any measure) claim that their candidate is immune to special interest funding and that the issue is overstated to begin with.

Without public funding of elections, we will continue this endless cycle of corporate democrats (who vote for economic/trade policies that screw over the majority of Americans) in the White House and Congress.

Consider this...

The number of registered lobbyists in Washington when Reagan took office: 50

The number of registered lobbyists today: over 35,000

[Tellurian]

87. Your info SB, deserves a special place in my Edwards dossier

I'll copy and paste it to my "Edwards Perfidies by Innuendo and Nuanced Prevarications" cook book!

On a cold winter day, your research will lend the spiciness we savor for a good hearty stew. :hi:

[ihavenobias]

42. Hillary & The Health Care Industry

"...In all, the Democratic presidential candidates have raised about $6.5 million from the industry, compared with nearly $4.8 million for the Republican candidates. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has amassed the most of any candidate, even as she calls for changes to the health care system that could pose serious financial challenges to private insurers, drug companies and other sectors.

Mrs. Clinton received $2.7 million through the end of September, far more than Mitt Romney, the Republican who raised the most from the health care industry, with $1.6 million. The industry’s shift in contributions toward Democratic candidates mirrors wider trends among donors, but the donations from this sector are particularly notable because of the party’s focus on overhauling the health care system..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/us/politics/29health.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[Cameron27]

53. And Obama is #2

"Among all the candidates in both political parties, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the health care industry, having raised about $2.2 million, according to campaign finance records."

So both Obama and Clinton are corrupt and will allow the healthcare industry to sway their policies? I don't think so.

[ihavenobias]

56. Fantasy Land?

Since when are politicians NOT influenced by money? You're joking right, please, please tell me you're joking?

It's a matter of *minimizing* the special interest money and also, paying close attention to *where it's coming from* and how that effects policy and potential future action. Once again, Hillary fails miserably in that regard.

Is there any real debate that our system is corrupt? I acknowledge that our system will not dramatically improve until we have publicly funded elections (supported by Edwards BTW), at which point we won't have to have sad arguments about which (major, right or wrong) candidate is *less* subject to special interest influence (Edwards by a mile in this case).

With PFE's we'll actually be able to talk ONLY about quality of the candidate and his/her ideas because we won't have people raising these absurd amounts of money (and raising more money might actually reflect the best candidate, although that depends on the media frame as well).

[Cameron27]

57. I'm not joking,

This is politics, and people are were willing to donate to Clinton and Obama because they're betting that one of them will win, Edwards...not so much. If you can point to where Clinton's or Obama's votes have been influenced by any lobbyists who've donated to them, or if you can show me that Edwards has given back any money he's received from special interest groups, you might have a point.

[ihavenobias]

59. Incredulous

I'm incredulous.

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I find it absolutely absurd that you would try to say that large amounts of special interest money have no (or only a minor) impact in politics, or that we shouldn't even bother with something like publicly funded elections because, basically, "that's just the way it is".

It's disheartening to me that you have this belief, or that you profess to in defense of Hillary. At least *I* concede that I'm choosing the lesser infraction (with the ultimate goal of public funding of elections) whereas you pretend that there's nothing wrong at all with the system as is.

PS---Examples? There are examples all over politics as far as the influence of money. Off top of my head, here is a perfect example of how this effects Hillary (I posted this previously but apparently you ignored it):

"...But one question few are asking -- is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate? That makes Jay Rockefeller's contributions look like abject chicken feed.

Mike McCurry and Jamie Gorelick, who both served in the previous Clinton administration, have been raking in money as telecom lobbyists (Gorelick has been providing "strategic advice" to Verizon about obtaining immunity). And Howard Wolfson -- currently a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign -- is a partner in Glover Park, who represent Verizon. No doubt they'll all have some s'plainin to do if Hillary joins Dodd in his filibuster -- as Barack Obama and Joe Biden have already said they would do.

If as Hillary Clinton says she accepts lobbyist money and yet it doesn't influence her vote, wouldn't now be a nice time to prove it? I think we're at one of those moments where the rubber meets the road on that particular claim. By making an unquivocal statement and bring attention to the matter, she could create a groundswell of public support that puts pressure on other Senate Democrats to respect the rule of law..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071026/cm_huffpost/070052

[Cameron27]

62. When she actually does something

post about it.

This is speculation: "But one question few are asking -- is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate? That makes Jay Rockefeller's contributions look like abject chicken feed."

I'm done, carry on with your gallant savior in white mentality, and if you can find the times the John Edwards has given back any donations from special interests groups, post about that too.

[ihavenobias]

63. Speculation?

I've already conceded that (again) I'm choosing the (far) lesser of the special interest evils WRT the major candidates, and *my* candidate also happens to have far more populist, pro-middle class (and hell, pro-democracy WRT public funding of elections and paper ballots) agenda.

You can keep denying and rationalizing but it doesn't change that fact.

[Cameron27]

66. Yes speculation,

Jane wonders why she hasn't heard Clinton speak up more, and ties in the money angle. Until there's some evidence of foul play, it's only speculation, and I'm not rationalizing at all.

[ihavenobias]

68. Better to speculate than ignore

the reality that our system is corrupt and just because you like a particular candidate doesn't somehow grant them immunity from the influence of corporate money.

Speaking of ignore, I summed up our differences (which you ignored) in that last post. It's the bottom line:

I'll take the candidate who has a much more populist, pro-middle class message (and policy agenda) who also has taken far less corporate money (no matter how you cut it) *yet* still stands a chance of winning the nomination and the general election (especially considering how wildly unpopular republicans are, and given that democrats are unpopular precisely because they keep moving FURTHER right in an effort to be seen as "centrist").

In the meantime you can focus ONLY on who you think is "inevitable" and ignore massive amounts of special influence (er, I mean, interest) money.

[Cameron27]

70. No, you believe that Edwards is who he says he is,

and therefore you can trust only his rhetoric, not his recently past voting record. I scrutinize voting records, and trends in voting, and nothing that I've read, leads me to believe that John Edwards has really changed from the person he was only a few years ago.

And to tell you the truth, even if I completely believed in his transformation, after all the mistakes, and all the wrong votes, I can't trust that he has the judgment to be the President.

[ihavenobias]

72. Sure, Sure

Voting mistakes? Do you mean when he voted like Hillary on the war yet only one of them can admit their mistake?

Or you do mean votes to bring us closer to war with Iran?

His populist message is certainly not as inconsistent with his voting record despite your claims:

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

PS---I fixed this for you: "And to tell you the truth, after all the mistakes, and all the wrong votes, I can't trust that she has the judgment to be the President."

Perfect, I agree.

[Cameron27]

76. Are you referring to John Edwards' disengenuous

apology based on the deceit that he was given faulty intel?

The John Edwards who was a member of the senate Intel Committee?

The John Edwards who said that it was right to invade Iraq even after he knew that there weren't WMDs?

The John Edwards who didn't include the fact that he hadn't bother to read the classified NIE docs in that apology?

The John Edwards who was the only Democrat on the committe who DIDN'T read the documents?

The John Edwards who not only didn't read the documents, but then stepped up to co-sponsor Lieberman's IWR?

The John Edwards who only apologized for his vote after the country turned against the war?

The John Edwards who wears his phony apology like a badge of honor?

Spare me your sanctimony.

Kyl/Lieberman was not a vote for war. It was a stupid vote, but it wasn't a vote for war.

[ihavenobias]

78. Uh, Huh

I thought you had said goodbye?

At any rate, don't bother with sources, especially since much of them will only contain *speculation*, which you've already said is off the table (right?).

Also, this is stuff from 2005! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

Hillary's Iran vote was this year, and not all that long ago. And I'd hope a future president wouldn't make such an incredibly stupid vote and NOT think it could lead to war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuB1h1GBoys&eurl

She doesn't learn from her mistakes, unlike some people.

[Cameron27]

79. Last word from me.

John Edwards' comments were so aggressively beligerent about Iran during the Herzliya conference, that he had to backtrack a few days later. Edwards hasn't had to vote for or against anything since he left the senate, so he can smugly stand on the sidelines and point his fingers at all those who still have full time jobs and consituents to answer to.

Final goodbye. Have the last word, I'm too tired to care.

[Tellurian]

88. Good Job seasonblue!

You've inspired me to enlarge JE's archive.. I will remember your good research with attribution when it's posted. Thanks for your perseverance.

[Cameron27]

100. Thanks Tellurian

I have no idea if that person's responded to my last post, since I ended up putting her/him on ignore in another thread.

btw, post it as your own, you've done much more investigating than I have, and I'm more than happy to help.

[RDANGELO]

14. It bothered me.

I think this hurts Hillary with the general election. Her supporters came across as arrogant. They booed Obama even though he was making a good point about her position on raising the cap.

[Clintonista2]

16. LOL! "They booed obama even though he was making a good point about her position on raising the cap"

They booed him because he called her "like mitt romney and rudy guiliani"

[mtnsnake]

29. "They booed him because he called her "like mitt romney and rudy guiliani"

Isn't it amazing how some people will do anything to twist things around?

You nailed it, Lirwin2.

[Clintonista2]

32. I'm just glad to see DU back to it's usual self

You can tell Clinton won the debate, by the number of lies/attacks on DU towards her today.

[wyldwolf]

17. but it didn't bother you when the KOS crowed booed Clinton?

Does that make make certain "progressive"* Obama and Edwards supporters arrogant?

[RDANGELO]

25. I'm not sure what you are taking about

, but if it was as noticeable at the debate, it would have bothered me.

[ihavenobias]

18. He made an excellent point

on the cap. In fact, that was an incredibly telling point on exactly how much of a populist Hillary is (or I should say, is not).

Middle class is the top 6%? I don't think so.

But again, when you factor in all that special interest money, it shouldn't be a surprise.

[emilyg]

46. Not at all.

[Lasher]

19. I see it as breaking even after McCain and his pals demeaned her.

McCain didn't call her a bitch but he went along. That was not right. Maybe you remember Junior's mommy Barbara called her a bitch too.

[BenDavid]

22. That's what freedom will do for ya. You like a candidate

and you wanna express your approval, one who either clap their hands:applause: or cheer :yourock: and if you disliked a candidates response then you would give a :thumbsdown: or boo or hiss. Oh the joys that freedom brings.

Ben David

[emilyg]

48. You

:yourock:

[acmavm]

23. Shit happens.

[AlGore-08.com]

26. Was the KOS forum an official "Presidential Debate" & broadcast live nationally on a major network?

If not, you're comparing apples to oranges. (I don't remember the Kos being telecast live on CNN or MNSBC, but I could be wrong.)

[wyldwolf]

34. what difference does that make? Either the behavior is acceptable or it is not

Shouldn't matter how big the viewing audience is/was.

[Clintonista2]

36. Yup, you are wrong

I remember CNN doing a TV piece on this back in august. They also have a written piece about it on their website: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/clinton-draws-boos-from-bloggers/

[katmondoo]

31. No

[goodgd_yall]

39. No n/t

[kelligesq]

41. Yep, but obvious rigging, purposely packed with HRC supporters

.

[wyldwolf]

43. link?

[ginchinchili]

44. There's a lot about this primary that doesn't smell right...

and it primarily involves Hillary and our "news" media.

[NewHampster]

47. Great. Blame Hillary for Murdock's media

Hillary must be in control of FOX, CNN and NBC. Wait, MSNBC nailed her so maybe not them.

[durrrty libby]

82. "It smells" because the haters noses are out of joint

[NewHampster]

45. Debates are in the eye of the losers

It is kinda of hilarious how we bitch one week and the others bitch another week. Only thing is, Hillary is winning way more debates than she is losing.

nh

[damntexdem]

50. No, I am outraged and appalled at the whole damn thing.

Particularly appalling was the unequal time given to candidates.

[JDPriestly]

51. No one should boo at any debate.

However, how the candidate responds to the booing tells a lot about how he or she will perform as president. Edwards showed last night that he can respond to booing courteously but firmly. He will be the next president of the United States. His poise and strength are the best insurance policies against swiftboating. Edwards got little time, and the cards were stacked against him, but Edwards won this debate hands down.

[CyberPieHole]

54. When Clinton gets "booed" she deserves it...

When Obama/Edwards get "booed" it's an outrage. Get with the program wyldwolf! :sarcasm:

:kick: and recommend

[NewHampster]

60. Can't trust wyldwolf to properly boo

:sarcasm:

[William769]

80. It's called hypocrisy.

[eShirl]

81. appropriate behavior for The Gong Show

or is that what we were watching?

[desi]

84. Not the least bit appalled.

Both Barack Obama and John Lazio-Edwards brought it upon themselves. No doubt they thought that Hillary would remain "above the fray" while being pummeled with Republican talking points/mud. Good on Hillary for calling a halt to it immediately and also her supporters for booing BOTH of them.

[otohara]

85. Canned Booing

is just as bad as canned laughter. Fake, phony, planned, expected, slimy, embarrassing.

[Perry Logan]

86. I thought it was the other candidates boo-hooing.

[Tellurian]

90. It was pretty obvious from the outset, Edwards was irritated

he replaced Gravel, relegated to the Wilderness of stage left.

[durrrty libby]

92. And when DK jumped on him, well,.... if looks could kill

[Tellurian]

99. Yes, DK looked visibly annoyed with BO and JE..

[laureloak]

95. Shame on Hillary for stooping so low to

plant booers in the audience. Do those same booers show up at rallies for her opponents.

I don't respect those tactics and I won't vote for anyone who uses them. So keep it up, Hillary.

[Tellurian]

97. Where;s the proof?

Or do you make a habit of interloping message boards with drive-by accusations then disappear?

[Gloria]

96. That and the fact that the media ignores issues and makes the whole thing

into a battle of image. The whole process is disgusting....

[Tellurian]

98. Hillary Smacked Down her detractors.. Whats wrong with that?

Obama thinks he's running for school prezident and Edwards is auditioning for Ponzi Guy.

[Rowdyboy]

101. Yes, I was appalled at the audience reaction. In a debate it was inexcusable.....

They should keep their mouths shut and allow the candidates to speak freely. Audience jeers shouldn't play a role in determining our nominee.

And, yes, I am ALWAYS offended when a Democrat is booed by "progresives". Edwards is my preference this year but Senator Clinton is a strong second for me. I've never found it necessary to hate candidates for the nomination who aren't my first choice. I'm a Democrat-I like everyone runing for the nomination.