ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

Hillary came off looking like a smug, smart-alec, desperate to win votes. I was surprised never followed up on her discusssions about Putin's "puppet" replacement in Russia, as she is obviously running to restor the Clinton regime in the US. In addition, she clearly adopted her husbands childish tactics of picking superfluos fights over words. Remember, Bill Clinton didn't know what the word "is" meant, nor what constituted "sex"? In this light, she actually scored a point in Obama's basket by allowing him to both "denounce" and "reject" Minister Farrakhan. Very silly for someone who is desperate to appear presidential! I found her comment about SNL stupid. It seemed stilted and forced and did not generate the response she was looking for. In addition, the clip of her denouncing Barack by saying..."and the heavens will open...etc" I found to be racially offensive, as the first think that came to mind was Doctor King's "I Have a Dream" speech. She just doesn't seem to understand that words, when put together well, elucidate ideas that people can react to and discern for themselves. She appears to be running a campaign similiar to the one waged by the current president. It's seems so obvious and transparent that she wants to restore her husband's image in the way George W. Bush sought to make up for his father's loss in 1992. She's just another inexperienced political hack who recites a resume that is nothing more than a laundry list. As Obama correctly pointed out, you cannot take credit for the successes of the Clinton administration without accepting responsibility for its failings. Alhtough I would support a woman for president, I can safely say that Hillary is not the right woman to be president. She just does not have the grace, judgement, nor temperment to be an effective world leader in the 21st century.

obamaforpresident | 02/27/08

Hillary had unconfident, disheveled posture and was speaking with here eyeballs hard wired to her medulla. She was a bona-fide lizard creature last night. She is losing.

FLIPSIDE | 02/27/08

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html This is part of the problem Obama refers to on Hillary's failure to get healthcare passed the last time . I think her "personalities" we've seen this week demonstrate that she has not changed.

SM | 02/27/08

Condi, please finish up your old debates you've started with one sentence instead of pulling headlines from newspapers and using them to start new ones. Your record says 2-0, but how many debates have you started and have let them keep going because you don't want to lose?

Austhus | 02/27/08

It seems as though the High Mistress of triangulation has been trainagulated by Obama! The "management" of her campaign and her unpredictable behavior are just a microcosm of how she'd govern and lead as President. Need I say more? "Solutions or Strengthening America" = READ: SOCIALISM FOR AMERICA. And, where are her Tax Returns? If we're going left, let's go forward instead of reverting back to the 90's. Her brand of "experience" has played out. Obama clearly demonstrated the aura and judgement of a future POTUS. He's thoughtful, methodical, and manages an exemplary campaign. His judgement is superior to hers.

abc | 02/27/08

You say he 'clearly' won the debate and then go on to claim he 'narrowly outpointed' her. Which is it, a clear win or a narrow squeak?

Junius Brutus | 02/27/08

Clinon is a socialist. Her health care plan is socialistic, and her rate freeze plan is socialistic. I absolutly agree that she should with draw from the race. The democrats want Obama.

yngster | 02/27/08

STOP VOTING BEFORE BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE AN ARGUMENT. Good god, votes should be done purely on the basis of the skills of debating, not solely on one's personal stance.

Accidental Democrat | 02/27/08

Clearly Obama is the best candidate for president of the U.S. His demeanor during the 20 debates has been explenary. Hillary cannot get the delegates she needs for nomination so she should just CONCEDE!

liz_sandiego | 02/27/08

Referring to Clinton's health plan as "socialistic" is using a loaded term in order to (unfairly) inspire a negative reaction. Socialism was viewed, during the Cold War, as being "Pink," as opposed to "Red." Close to communism but slightly gentler. It still contains those negative communist-ish connotations, so using it without intending the connotations is unwise and unfair. Fairness requires defense of either candidate when treated in such a cavalier manner. I'm for Obama, but the attempt here to denigrate Clinton's health care using loaded terms is shameful. If you must oppose it, try doing so on the merits - and the realities. Perhaps socialism, as a full form of government, is inappropriate, but certain public needs can only be served fully with programs that are "socialistic" in nature. We already have a socialistic system, long in place, and its name is Social Security. It has worked beautifully for decades, and many people, like me, would live in penury without it. But nobody is denouncing it as socialistic, even though that's precisely what it IS. And it works. It is one of the best pieces of legislation ever written in our country. There are certain areas of life, where the entire public has the same need, and where that need is deeply exploited in a capitalistic nation, and where a socialistic type of plan can be very effective, as in Social Security. Health care is yet another. We even have it, in part, in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Though beset with problems, it, too, is working. So a universal health care program could indeed work well. The problem is that getting us from here to there is unlikely to occur in one fell swoop. It would be a huge jolt to switch like that. I think Sen. Obama realizes this. I can't imagine him not wanting all Americans to have full health coverage, but he's a realist. Step by step is better than going for broke and getting nothing. Sen. Clinton already made a big "try" for universal coverage. We got nothing. It's likely to play out the same way for her again. Obama offers a realistic - and achievable - alternative. Maybe later, that can be evolved into universal coverage, too. He offers something that is achievable. That's what acounts most.

faster | 02/27/08

As for the significance of words vs. substance, it should be remembered that wisdom is demonstrable using either or both. No matter how much substance a person has, how much experience in the mileu, wisdom is required. Obama has more of it than Sen. Clinton, who only knows how to work in the very system of today's politics that Sen. Obama wants to make more responsive to the public. Being "a fighter" is often good, but can be overdone. Hillary would face battles that would not even be joined against Obama - based on the collective, deep hatred of her by the GOP. She'd get less done as a result, whether it was her own fault or not. And she surely would have to do more fighting than Obama would, to gain the same ends, once in office. Hillary knows how to fight - except with an opponent who refuses to fight back on the same terms, but chooses conciliation instead. It leaves her looking callow. Fighting, when no fight is called for, isn't wise. A large proportion of her support base is coming from "old-school" sources, where she still carries great weight with the Party's bigwigs. Obama has risen in spite of not having that, which is remarkable in itself. Yes, being a fighter is important. But I have great difficulty imagining Obama quailing before a fight, if it's thrust upon him, and with no options. He seems up to the task. He seems to know when to fight, but more importantly, when NOT to, when other options may work better. It's also easy to forget that being "a conciliator" is just as important as being "a fighter." In some ways, it is more of a "fight" to conciliate than to do open battle. People often forget this, too. Fighting does not have to be open warfare. It can be the "fight" to gain a consensus. That usually takes special gifts. It's certainly not wise to have a leader who's default posture is combative. I chose Obama because I think he can stand up to the worst the GOP can dish out, and still prefer conciliation over fighting. They'll go after him, to be sure, but there IS no place on Obama to gain traction.

faster | 02/27/08

How many of you have given this any consideration, when people talk about the importance of "experience"? I chose Obama also because, having lived in a predominantly Islamic population (Indonesia), he's likely to have insights into Islam and Muslims which could be of great benefit in our dealings with the Islamic world. The attacks on him for having had a Muslim father are despicable. Worse, but I can't find the word to describe it. He didn't become a Muslim, and has shown a distinct preference for the values of Christianity, since he's a church-goer. It can't mean that he didn't consider Islam, but it does mean he chose - against it. I'd prefer he had no religious affiliation, but the U.S. isn't ready for people like that. We're still too ingrown to tolerate an agnostic. He hasn't lost his focus, either, about terrorism. He's said that if it became known exactly where bin Laden and Zawahiri were holed up in Pakistan, he wouldn't hesitate to bomb the area. I don't call that cowardice. Instead, it is focused, a determination to seek those people relentlessly, and really FINISH the job Bush bleated he would accomplish after 9/11. Sen. Obama has been the target of bigotry in his life - can't help but have been. So I have no doubt he'd treat the Hispanic population with deep consideration. Hispanics should vote for platforms, because neither candidate will do them wrong, and loyalty should not take precedence over issues. Loyalty is a good thing, but it is often overrated. The Clinton way of doing politics does indeed rely upon - and amply reward - loyalty. Good, but only up to a point. Loyalty should not override considerations of wisdom, appropriateness and effectiveness. Nor should loyalty be required to be servile. I don't think Sen. Clinton knows (or respects) these distinctions, but Obama does. Where possible and practical, he'd reward loyalty, but never to get a "yes-man" (or woman) out of it. Lip service is often given to independence of thought, but it is rare indeed to find anyone - let alone a politician - who genuinely reveres that quality in people. As a president, he really WOULD want people around him to freely express their thoughts. It's the only way to get imagination and creativity into his administration, and he knows it. Few politicians do. Yes, I'd vote, and cheerfully, for a qualified woman - and Sen. Clinton is very qualified in many important ways. But for today's needs, there is no reason to stick with that on principle. Obama has the better overall qualities (and attitiudes, including wisdom and genuine egalitarianism) to be our next president - more, to undo the deep harm that "politics as usual" has done to this nation. She can't go after that, because she's been enmeshed in it her entire political life - she's stuck with it.

faster | 02/27/08

No, the "skills of debating" aren't the determining factor (nor is money) in choosing a candidate; the candidate's posture on important issues IS. And both have fully clarified for the American people what their postures are. It's perfectly rational to have made one's choice by now. What's more difficult is to grasp how some could still be undecided. It's their absolute right, of course, although I don't know what more they're looking for. Obama, where, oh, where, were you in the last presidential election? Kerry didn't win, but you certainly might have. And spared us 4 more years of the worst president, ever. After all, even Nixon might have stuck at approving torture. We knew Bush approved, yet we re-elected him. America had gotten profoundly dummed-down. I think we've seen the errors of our ways by now - I hope! Obama is the first politician (of either stripe) in many years capable of "thinking out of the box." And oh, HOW we need that! I "don't sweat the small stuff" in the quibbles going on, particularly about Sen. Clinton's appearance as a "poor sport." I don't hold those quibbles against her, as many are doing. It's the issues that count, and the essential substance of the character and personal strengths of our potential nominee. Both would be strong each in an individual way. Obama would be best, though. He's not afraid to see things clearly, for what they ARE. Nor is he afraid to try to make things better, even if it opposes the entire political establishment. That's a kind of fight, too, and requires a unique kind of courage. In a way, he's "in a battle" with the entire political machinery of America which has failed us so toweringly for so long. He wages it with intelligence, realism and aplomb. Good show, Obama!

faster | 02/27/08

One final word. In case you might be wondering what eventual universal health care (or Obama's modified version of it) would DO, try this on for size. I live in Mexico. Here, they have a plan you can buy into - employers must pay for it for all full-time employees - that provides total coverage, no copayments or deductibles. It covers outpatient office visits and all prescriptions or medical devices. Anyone can have it, even foreigners living there, like me. Cost? I pay a bit more than usual, being over 60 - $450 U.S., more or less (family coverage is a bit more). Per YEAR! I am disabled with nerve damage - totally uninsurable in my homeland; here I have total coverage, and as long as I keep paying for it every year, it can't be compromised or taken from me. I've used it - 9 days with pneumonia in one of their hospitals, walked out cured and it didn't cost me a peso. It was squeaky clean, the care was diligent, caring and professional. I could even overlook the need to bring my own TP, soap and towels. What can one want at the price I paid? Tell me: how many Americans could NOT afford something like what I have? And how many would drool to have it? Socialized health care, whether universal and mandated, or subscribed to, as in Mexico (at an extremely low cost), is the only way America can avoid having a small elite of "haves" and vast majority of "have-nots." The commercial - and capitalistic - nature of most aspects of health care are what makes it unaffordable for so many. And people are getting really riled about it - for good reason. I'm by no means an opponent of capitalism. I do have the wisdom to know that, when serving the universal and deeply-vital human needs of the public, capitalism usually exploits. Our health care should not be based on the profit system. Profits will always come first, as we know full-well by now. Socialized programs serve the public better, in such cases, and SS is the proof of it. If Mexico can do it, who'd say we can't? Private care is always available, if you don't want to use the public system, so nobody loses anything they have right now - except the big businesses gaining hugely because we have no options except them when obtaining health care. Private insurance allows gouging on medical expenses - like $75 for a single gauze pad in a hospital. Most things do well in capitalism; health care isn't one of them. A government run "insurance" would make all charges accountable as to reasonableness, and costs would go way down, even for those who utilize private options.

faster | 02/27/08

People: How about being a little bit more objective? I have heard a lot of references today about Hillary's "fight for choice of words" during last night's debate. Pay attention. Denouncing someones anti-semitic statements is not the same as rejecting the political support of that person(and their allies). The "fight for choice of words" had to do with being firm on your stance and standing up for your values. (People should want to find out which values a candidate is willing to defend in public and under pressure). But, maybe this is too deep for people to understand.

t.a. | 02/27/08

As far as the whole "I always go first" argument, I seem to remember that for the CNN/Univision debate in Austin, the order of presentation was determined by a flip of the coin. What do you call that? A conspiracy of change?

PDXMike | 02/28/08

Did anyone see Meet the Press 2/24? After Hillary accused Obama of plagiarism, a charge he easily refuted, she closed her debate with the "I'll be okay but what about America line." Everyone called it a final inning point for her. Well, guess what? Totally lifted by John Edwards and Bill Clinton, almost word for word. It seems to me if you're going to level the charge, you should at least make sure you don't commit the same offense in the next breath. No mystery that I'm voting for Obama and doing all I can to help him win.

Lady in LA | 03/03/08