QuantumBios:

Are you serious? Are conservatives really still criticizing liberals for spending too much after looking at the budget management of Bill Clinton vs. Bush II?

Take that Cherry Chocolate Diet Dr. Pepper!

To Jimmi:

Fighting in a war does not make you infallible. Being in a POW camp does not give you some divine clairvoyance that allows you to make great decisions. Similarly, pointing out the flaws of people who are claiming to make America safer does not make one unpatriotic.

Also, "the second we give up the fight we will be conquered!!" Well, that was certainly true with the Communists in Vietnam, so I'm just going to assume it will be equally true with the extremists in Iraq.

Disturbing as hell.

Also, I like that they talk about McCain teaching angels to rearrange the vote. Is that what Bush did in the last couple presidential elections?

You're right Robert, we certainly don't want those stupid "foriegnors" to "dillute" our society. I mean, they can barely speak English!

I will agree with you on one point, though: People should really understand propaganda before they register their opinion at the polling place.

(P.S. Sorry if this ends up as a double post.)

I'm John McCain and I don't think attacking another Islamic country that already hates us is something that needs to be taken seriously. I mean, it's not like barging into Iraq has united our enemies and fanned their hatred of us, right?

Hey, that is a funny joke! Oh, wait...

"Mr. McCain has clearly indicated he is going to continue the war until there is some sort of a victory, however that is defined, and the definition keeps changing. The victory is a little bit like the horizon. That is to say it is an imaginary objective which recedes as you walk towards it."

This is a great metaphor. I'm going to use it all the time now. Also...

"My travel agent has been to 150 countries."

Oh snap! I love this guy!

I believe that al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, has gained a foothold in Iraq since we barged in. I also believe that Iran, a predominantly Shi'ite country, passionately hates America. But are they really working together? So far I haven't heard anyone credible say so.

If they are, though, you heard it here first: America helped Sunnis and Shi'ites put aside their differences and finally work together towards a common goal. Great job, America.

To US Marine: Does Hannity really promote himself as an honorary member of the KKK? Not that I would be surprised, but cite a credible source.

To fake Hippie Dude: No true progressive wants Fox News censored. What we want is for people to realize that they are not a news channel, they are simply another way for conservatives to spread their twin messages of hate and fear. They are free to say what they want, just like Bush's press secretary is free to say what she wants. But considering either a credible source for news is ludicrous.

Man, he is PISSED OFF! And so am I. I am grateful that someone who will actually be heard is making this tirade for us.

I am currently a strong Obama supporter. A little over a month ago, when I voted in the Super Tuesday primaries, I had no preference. I liked both of them, I thought both had their own strengths, and I was still deciding between the two while I was in line to vote. (I went to the polls primarily to vote on ballot measures.) In the end, I voted Obama, because I felt that he was more electable in a general election.

I say this to point out that I am not upset with Hillary because I am an Obama supporter. I am an Obama supporter because I am upset with Hillary. The differences between the platforms of Hillary and Obama are minuscule compared to the Democrat-Republican canyon. The single most important thing is for Democrats to win back the White House. Hillary's "If I can't be president, then no Democrat can" attitude is seriously f*cked up. When she is comparing Obama and McCain, it kind of sounds like when Nader was comparing Gore and Bush. Well, Nader was wrong, and so are you Hillary. I'll still support you if you win the nomination, because your causes are much better than McCain's. But the way you conduct yourself and your campaign, your political ethics, and your party loyalty leave a LOT to be desired.

P.S. Bill, I still love you, even though you've made some questionable decisions over the past few months.

Man, he is PISSED OFF! And so am I. I am grateful that someone who will actually be heard is making this tirade for us.

I am currently a strong Obama supporter. A little over a month ago, when I voted in the Super Tuesday primaries, I had no preference. I liked both of them, I thought both had their own strengths, and I was still deciding between the two while I was in line to vote. (I went to the polls primarily to vote on ballot measures.) In the end, I voted Obama, because I felt that he was more electable in a general election.

I say this to point out that I am not upset with Hillary because I am an Obama supporter. I am an Obama supporter because I am upset with Hillary. The differences between the platforms of Hillary and Obama are minuscule compared to the Democrat-Republican canyon. The single most important thing is for Democrats to win back the White House. Hillary's "If I can't be president, then no Democrat can" attitude is seriously f*cked up. When she is comparing Obama and McCain, it kind of sounds like when Nader was comparing Gore and Bush. Well, Nader was wrong, and so are you Hillary. I'll still support you if you win the nomination, because your causes are much better than McCain's. But the way you conduct yourself and your campaign, your political ethics, and your party loyalty leave a LOT to be desired.

P.S. Bill, I still love you, even though you've made some questionable decisions over the past few months.

To Matt:

What video? Also, you say that Obama is nothing more than a good speaker. What are you basing that on?

To John:

If you think this election is going to be a landslide, I think you are grossly underestimating the depths to which Republicans will sink in order to win. Smear tactics and election fraud are a powerful 1-2 punch.

To Craig:

I think many progressives are not fans of the two-party system. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to break out of. Any unilateral attempt to do so would only result in crushing defeat by the other party. And the idea that the two parties in power would reach some agreement that would allow other parties more representation seems pretty far-fetched indeed. Because of the rules we have in place, it is futile to work against the two party system, so we must work within it.

As for Nader, I assure you that many progressives agree with his politics, and we all are very happy with the work he has done while not pursuing the White House. If he ran in a Democratic primary, he would certainly get a decent percentage of the votes. (He probably would not get the nomination, simply because America is indeed more conservative in many ways than you guys across the Atlantic--something we are working hard to change.)

The reason we are antagonistic towards him is because he will not work within the two-party system, which as I said before, is an unfortunate necessity. If he had not run, the people who voted for him in 2000 would easily have made Gore's victory over Bush large enough that the Supreme Court would not be able to overturn it. This of course assumes that the ultra-liberals who voted for him would choose Gore over Bush (and who can really dispute that).

His view that Democrat and Republican candidates are equally bad is simply ludicrous. Case in point: Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming; Bush policies have set back environmentalism for decades to come. While we respect the work that he has done, we are utterly confused as to how Nader can possibly believe this to be true. That is the cause of the current national sentiment towards Nader. Hope that clears things up for you.

It's hard to be clear exactly what was going on in the debate because of the cuts the video editor made. In case you were curious, Obama continues...

"OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, [video feed cut off] our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues."

Oh that crafty Obama, always playing the race card.

Honestly, (and I'm no McCain supporter) I'm a little impressed that he says there are still things about the Christian right that he disagrees with. In terms of election year ideology changes for the Republicans, this might be about as tame as it gets.

Here's my guess on his reply:

"9-11 changed everything."

Things that made me laugh/cringe:

"I know there's a lot of hatred now towards conservatives..."
- Yes, you guys are such victims. Poor, poor conservatives, who would never harm a flea or promote incredibly intense hatemongering towards anyone who has ever had a liberal thought.

"There has been utter silence over this" crazy liberal saying he wants to shoot Rush Limbaugh. ...except for this 6 minute report on it. And I'm sure this wasn't the only time Fox went over it.

"...the statement made by Ann Coulter that was so *vilely* taken out of context and chopped up to make it appear that she was advocating the assassination of John Edwards."
- We here at Fox news would *never* take quotations out of context. We prefer to misquote, and then yell our opinions over you when you try to correct us.
- To be fair, her quote was taken out of context. It was directly preceded by a misquote of Bill Maher that would (had it been true) have lessened the severity of her comment somewhat.

The website below got cut off, here it is broken up:

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/
agosto/mar28/35reflex3.html

Dude, did you know that Hillary and Obama have "support from a dictator"?

Really?

Yeah, I heard it on Fox News. Apparently they have "Fidel Castro's support".

And just like that, the lie becomes fact. Or close enough. This clip was missing the key part that makes videos on this website so great: facts to go along with the lies/distortions.

Here's what Castro actually wrote:

"Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding 'a democratic government in Cuba'. They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/agosto/mar28/35reflex3.html

Have you ever heard such a glowing endorsement?

Fox has honed in on the very best way to get people to believe whatever you want. Loudly say things that are just close enough to facts so that you can't be sued for slander, and shoot out talking points and buzzwords as quickly as you can, before anyone has a chance to think about what actually happened.

Conservatives have been able to dominate TV as a "news" medium because:
1. If you can yell loud enough, your opponent will never be heard, but you can still say you invited them on your show.
2. You never need to cite sources.

I have no video editing skills, but could someone please re-edit this clip to show Castro's actual words?

To overmind25:

Yeah, that was a pretty unfortunate place for Hillary to laugh, but at least give her the benefit of the doubt and show what she said afterward. Cutting off people's microphones should be left to Fox.

To MOOaCOW and similar-minded users:

1. Obama has also voted against some war funding. And if he voted against *all* war funding, there would be hordes of politicians pointing at him and saying, "He's the reason our troops don't have body armor!" right before they break out into a tearful rendition of "Our Country 'Tis of Thee."

2. I don't think it's fair to penalize someone for not being in the Senate so that they could vote against going to war. I agree somewhat that it's much easier to say that he would have voted against it, but still, lighten up.

3. Do people still not understand the two-party system? Especially with someone as charismatic as Obama, or even Hillary, there is less than 0.0000000000000001% chance of someone with more liberal views winning the presidency. A vote for *anyone* other than the Democratic nominee is completely equivalent a vote for the Republican nominee (well, technically half a vote). I am still very confused as to how anyone could believe otherwise.

Obama absolutely won this section of the debate. He has done a great job of staying above attack politics (for the most part), and I think it's one of the major reasons he has done so well during the primaries. I wonder, though, whether he will be able to do so during the general election (if he gets the nomination), and if so, will it be helpful? In general, attack politics is used because it works. Is Hillary bad at it, or is Obama just stellar at deflecting it?

Also, I like how Hillary repeats her talking point about how we need concrete goals to organize around right after Obama lists three of his own. I guess she wasn't paying attention.