comment #1

Zimmergirl says ...

I've been an Obama supporter all along but after the debate, Hillary has my vote - not just because she was so well spoken but because, when you get right down to it, it's health care vs. the war. The perfect candidate for me would have been the promise to end the war and provide universal health care. Each has one but not necessarily the other. No matter; McCain will win.

comment #2

Eric Stanton says ...

Before the arrows start flying in earnest, I just want to say: I think the cameras caught you, Jeff. There were a number of cuts to the celebs in the audience, and at one moment late in the debate when they cut to a shot of Rob Reiner, I noticed a guy sitting behind him who looked a lot like....the photo that adorns this site. I swear I thought to myself at that moment - "Wells was going to this thing - surely he didn't get seats THAT good, did he?" Hunched forward, scowling slightly during one of Hillary's responses, no doubt pondering her interference with the dream wave. Had to be you.

comment #3

Jay T. says ...

McCain won't win the general election... in general, America is tired of older white men (for the moment). It's true - the Republicans would be better off with a younger candidate in this election.

comment #4

businesstoolz says ...

With all this talk of "making history" and "diversity" (which, personally, I think is an incredible thing) my cynical side just won't let me put away the sinking feeling that American will end up doing what it always does, put the old white rich man in charge.

comment #5

Monument says ...

I would have loved to be at the debates, but a conversation with Stevie Wonder? Now I'm really jealous.

comment #6

Adonis says ...

Monument,

See for me, Dicaprio is the jaw-dropper :). Actually, it would habe been nice to talk to him about a few films/environment...

Certainly a more fascinating figure than Reiner or Speilberg.

comment #7

Edward says ...

I only caught the last hour of the debate, but I still like Obama. I found Clinton's expression when she wasn't talking, annoying. It looked to me like a smirk, but I was watching on my computer. If Mrs. Clinton does get the nomination, I won't feel like I have to hold my nose when I vote for her.

Anyone else hate the set? You think they were trying to remind us that it was being covered by CNN? By placing the two candidates so closely together, I think, emphasized their chumminess.

comment #8

twicks says ...

I just hope Stevie doesn't feel the need to compose another "song" like his bizarre "We need Kerry/To carry us" chant from last time.

comment #9

George Prager says ...

I must commend ZZZZZZZZimmergirl on her latest post. She's consistent. She's always 1000% wrong about absolutely everything. She's doesn't disappoint.

comment #10

Dirty Harry says ...

My favorite crowd shot of the debate was of Fischer Stevens. Methinks it was late and they were running out of celebrities.

We can win in '08 with McCain. We can win on The War, which both of these pro-defeatists will have zero credibility on. "I can surrender in 5 months!" "Well I can surrender in 3!"

Eventually Obama will actually have to talk substance. "The fierce urgency of now" isn't gonna "Hope" him through the Summer.

comment #11

pauly says ...

How that "debate" could change anyone's mind is beyond me, I don't need to see those kind of events.

I'm sorry to offend, but anyone who believes a word out of Hillary's mouth is nuts, she stands for nothing except that which she thinks will get her elected. At least Obama showed actual courage in opposing the war at a time when that wasn't the popular thing to do. Obama has run a relatively clean campaign, but Hillary played the race card as soon as they got desperate...just one more example of what she is really like.

I saw on Fox that Ann Coulter plans to vote for Hillary now...enough said.

I'm sick and tired of this crap, I want a candidate who actually inspires me and gives me a little hope, so it's Obama or no one for me. I haven't felt inspired by a candidate since Clinton in 92, but I might have been a little naive then...it was my first time to vote. I won't be voting if Hillary wins and if she does win, it will just mean our president is even more out of touch with average Americans than usual...more of the same shit.

comment #12

dangovich says ...

The only people who are going to "win" in Iraq are the defense contractors.

comment #13

Monument says ...

"I'm sorry to offend, but anyone who believes a word out of Hillary's mouth is nuts, she stands for nothing except that which she thinks will get her elected."

This bears repeating, it's the number one reason why I will not support Hillary Clinton.

comment #14

T. Holly says ...

Uhh, I don't think so, smartypants... Sharon Waxman, Washington Post contributor? Unless she's going byline-less.

comment #15

Celebrity Werewolf Hunter says ...

After watching moments of last night's debate, its become clear to me that she is going to to beat Obama for the nomination and lose to McCain in the general election.

It appeared that Obama and Clinton made nice, met in the back room before the debate and made a pact to allow the loser to be the winner's running mate, a prospect which is not ideal for Obama and spells a Clinton-Obama ticket in '08. He really needed to outshine her last night on such a public stage and he played with kid gloves.

I desperately hope I'm wrong and Obama puts together a solid showing on Tuesday.

comment #16

charles says ...

News flash: While I hate piling on to the cynicism on political blogs, which I think is noxious, the main thing that anyone running for President stands for is that they want to be President. Even (gasp) Obama. Other candidates just maybe mask it better that she does.

And I say this as someone who has donated money, attended rallies, and will be campaigning at precinct houses for Obama on Tuesday-if you hate Hillary Clinton so much that you are willing to stay home on Election Day and allow McCain (who has rubberstamped the Bush administration, is considered rabidly conservative, and has said that he would be happy to stay in Iraq for a century) to win and continue on the path that weve been on for 8 years (to doom), then you need to have your head examined. Stop being so selfish and dumb.

comment #17

Mikeb says ...

Hey Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong on these numbers. Hilary has 55,12,2 (could pick up by Fri maybe an eighteen million, maybe twenty million weekend) Obama 35,23,8 Family types don't poll well, this could also pick up by fri.maybe 11-12...For whatever reason the significant indicators that the Hannah Montana concert film will be extra-big (as indicated by yesterday's Fandango report) aren't showing up in tracking...79, 15 and 4.. Fool's Gold...

It doesn't look good.

Mike Binder

comment #18

onemike says ...

I thought Obama killed Hillary last night, but apparently I'm the only one. I was on the fence until then. Hillary doesn't answer questions - she trails on and on - I hated her answer to the "what did you learn as a first lady in the white house" question, where she had to pontificate about the past 35 years of her life instead of answering the question. And also, I'm not really cool with someone telling me I MUST buy health care in a free country ... but now that I think about it, they already do that with car insurance, so maybe I should start a revolution. If Clinton gets the nom I'm hoping we see Bloomberg spend 5 billion dollars to run.

comment #19

Edward says ...

Mike's number's say it all...Hannah Montana for President!

On a more serious note: Well said Mike. Not voting is giving the Republican's an edge they don't deserve.

comment #20

Edward says ...

I meant to say, well said onemike.

comment #21

Ross says ...

It's terrifying to think about at least another 4 years of Conservative control. And sadly I think that Obama and/or Clinton give us the best chance of that happening. I'm ready to vote for either, they're both a step in the right direction. But sadly I don't think that America is ready to vote for a woman or an African-American. They'll vote for the Old-White-Guy again and again.

What really needs to happen is the abolishment of the Electoral College! I think it's the only chance either candidate stands, and we wouldn't be in this whole mess to start with. One person = one vote... my ass.

comment #22

Monument says ...

"It's terrifying to think about at least another 4 years of Conservative control. And sadly I think that Obama and/or Clinton give us the best chance of that happening."

I see it differently. Obama is a Democrat who has and will convince people to cross party lines and vote for him. McCain is a Republican who has and will convince people to cross party lines and vote for him. Hillary does not have this kind of charisma, or character.

I think Obama has the best chance against McCain. Hillary will more than likely cause Republicans to get out and vote, en masse; and will cause quite a few "on the fence" Democrats and Independents to vote for John McCain. I just don't see her winning.

comment #23

Mumbleboy says ...

I saw that shot of Reiner too, but I thought it was David Lynch sitting behind him. Didn't think it was Jeff at all. Never thought they looked alike, but my first impression begs otherwise. Did you tell him how much you disliked The Bucket List?

comment #24

T. Holly says ...

Monument, your picking up David Poland's wave.

He said Good stuff: "a true charismatic and doesn't have to grin from ear-to-ear while trying to convey warmth..."

And a Mindbender: "with so few, but such strong distinctions between"... McCain and Obama, "that would be a race."

comment #25

Mumbleboy says ...

Two words Hillary used to describe her health care plan are the reasons it will never pass: mandate and shared responsibility. Ok, one word and one phrase. That's all it will take for the Republicans to paint it as "socialized" medicine. With Barack's plan, its all about letting individuals decide whether to buy it or not, which he believes they will if it is cheap enough. I agree with that idea, but I don't know how cheap will be cheap enough to get it to universal.

Monument, I couldn't agree more.

comment #26

Monument says ...

I don't read Poland, I tried but he obviously is in love with the smell of his own bullshit. But a broken clock is still right twice a day.

comment #27

rocco says ...

Blitzer landed two haymakers without which Obama received a shellacking...Hillary was articulate, stately, and surprisingly warm. She talked fast and sometimes in circles, but her thoughts and ideas are so much more fluid than Barack's. Her Jesus evocation made me gag and her hyena cackling has got to stop otherwise, and it pains me to say this, but she's the more persuasive of the two. After watching McCain act like a douchebag on Wednesday night I was really leaning towards Obama, but he's just too gracious...that might make him a better person than Hillary, but it doesn't qualify him for president. Of course it's all an act with Clinton (see her latest shenanigans with Florida to get a better idea of her true nature), but watching last night's debate in a vacuum one could only conclude that, between the two, Hillary is more suited to run this country.

Excuse me while I go find a bar of lifebuoy to suck on.

comment #28

Dirty Harry says ...

"The fierce urgency of now."

I still don't know what that means.

comment #29

SpiderMonkey says ...

This was a great debate because despite the relative lack of fireworks, it was actually about the ISSUES. Hillary performed splendidly as she always does. Barack was thoughtful, engaging, and clearly pensive throughout the whole thing, just as he always is. I consider myself to be an Obama supporter... For me, there was a very telling moment in last night's debate, and it's one I'm surprised no one else has caught... this was a tiny moment, right near the end of the broadcast: after the debate had finished, and after Barack had helped Hillary out of her chair, he then went back over to his own chair and pushed it back into the table. This was done off to the side, the camera was not even focusing on him. Hillary simply allowed hers to go flailing off, spinning around. Does a small action like this constitute a reason to choose one person over the other? Of course not. But it's the small things like that that say a lot about who a person really is. Obama pushed his chair in. I am voting for Barack Obama.

comment #30

Jay T. says ...

Funny comment about them agreeing to name the other as a running mate. That's far too logical, as an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket would almost surely win the general election. I think there's far too much ego involved for that to happen, but you never know.

comment #31

Marcello says ...

I just don't understand people who think Americans won't vote for a Woman or African American. I mean, where have you been? It's HAPPENING. They're breaking voting records in every primary. Obama's getting tens of thousands of independent voters. Open your eyes!

Also... let's not forget that England and freakin' PAKISTAN have elected women to lead their countries. It's not actually that impressive that we've reached this point.

McCain is going to be a serious underdog no matter who the nominee is. That's just a fact at this point. It doesn't mean he won't win -- but it does mean that dire predictions that he will win are inane, paranoid, and defeatist.

comment #32

Dirty Harry says ...

"Obama pushed his chair in. I am voting for Barack Obama."

Obama's gonna hand 25 million innocent Iraqis over to terrorists, but he pushed his chair in.

Why did I stop being a liberal? Oh, yeah, that's why.

The fierce urgency of pushing the chair in.

comment #33

Ross says ...

"I just don't understand people who think Americans won't vote for a Woman or African American. I mean, where have you been? It's HAPPENING. They're breaking voting records in every primary. Obama's getting tens of thousands of independent voters. Open your eyes!"

I hope your right. I live on the west coast, in a very liberal town, so everybody I know is ready to vote for either. But I never underestimate the power of discrimination.

comment #34

George Prager says ...

I clicked on Dirty Harry's name and saw this:

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/gahflagspread.jpg

This tells me that Dirty Harry has some kind of personality disorder.

Anyway, I think we can all agree on one thing. Barack and Hillary are the liberals and John McCain is the conservative. What I can't understand is all of the wingnuts who think John McCain is a liberal. I guess that makes Ronald Reagan a liberal.

comment #35

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Dirty Harry: It is Iraq's fate and in the cards to break up into two or three countries, like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia did. A Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish nation, most likely. Will the changeover be pleasant? Will it be accomplished without bumps or bruises or blood or death? The answer, sadly, is "almost certainly not." But we can't expect to wave our hands and fire our rifles and orchestrate a peace. It's not our country or our culture. We are the Martians in "War of the Worlds," and sooner or later the local organisms are going to bring us down. The invader has to choice but to leave. The mission of preventing another 9/11 must be based upon killing or capturing Al Qeada chiefs in Afghanistan and Pakistan and vigilant domestic terrorism monitoring. That's what we need to do. We can't create happiness or stability in Iraq. That country is poisoned and rancorous beyond belief. Staying there and trying to sort things out in order to justify the lies and obsessions of the Bush administration is pathetic.

comment #36

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

well Dirty Harry....take solace in the fact that the moron you will be voting for will keep us in Iraq for another 100 years. And there is a "fierce urgency" to keep people like that away from making the careless decisions that continue to push this country down the wrong path thats headed towards being irrecoverable.

comment #37

Dirty Harry says ...

The Wellsian fierce urgency of ignorance and wishful thinking: "The mission of preventing another 9/11 must be based upon killing or capturing Al Qeada chiefs in Afghanistan and Pakistan and vigilant domestic terrorism monitoring. That's what we need to do. We can't create happiness or stability in Iraq."

Yeah, there's no al Queda in Iraq. Al Queda hasn't called Iraq the frontline in the war on terror. Why if we just leave Iraq al Queda couldn't possibly take over as they almost did when we had 100,000 American troops there last year.

Is the surge quelling the violence and routing al Queda? Well, except for those anecdotal car bombs that cheer liberals, yes. But let's leave anyway.

Will Iraqis die? Fuck 'em. It's but "bumps or bruises or blood or death." Bush must be proven wrong!

Truly venal and heartless.

The fierce urgency of fuck 'em, hurt Bush.

And, yeah, we're the martians. We're trying to kill or enslave an entire population.

Love it when the liberal mind rears it's true compassion and strident anti-Americanism.

comment #38

Marcello says ...

Dirty Harry does have a point that the "pull out all the troops" people gloss over, and he shouldn't be mocked for bringing it up. We WRECKED that place, and if we can keep things from becoming even more unbelievably chaotic, there's certainly a strong argument that we have a moral responsibility to stay. And if I hear Hillary say one more time that "the political leaders in Iraq need to stand up," (or whatever), like this is all THEIR DAMN FAULT and they should just stop taking those long holidays, I really will have to cringe when I vote for her for president (which of course I will).

comment #39

Monument says ...

Marcello, that's another reason why I support Obama, his approach to troop withdrawal is far more reasonable than Hillary's.

comment #40

Meegosh says ...

The complaint that Obama isn't "black enough" is the very thing that will actually give him a chance to be elected. If he were "black enough" that is when the racists would really come out. I wouldn't worry to much about it as it is. On the other hand, as a previous poster has already said, Clinton will not convince republicans to cross party lines. Part of that is because she is a women, she's also one of the most unlikeable people I have ever seen, that can't help.

comment #41

Marcello says ...

Obama's a candidate that racists can vote for to prove to themselves that they're not racist.

The problem with Clinton is she'll mobilize a Republican base that otherwise won't mobilize behind McCain. AND he controls the center (at least on paper) head to head with her in a way he doesn't with Obama. I still think Hillary beats him (though Obama would CRUSH him) because I disagree (Meegosh) about her likability. I think that's very 2000 (in the same way that McCain's appeal is). She's gotten very good at connecting with voters and McCain has really lost his touch.

comment #42

bents75 says ...

"Yeah, there's no al Queda in Iraq. Al Queda hasn't called Iraq the frontline in the war on terror."

Well if they have called it the frontline, it's because that's exactly what George Bush made it. How much of an asshole are you Dirty Harry that you want to fight an organized group of terrorists in SOMEONE ELSE'S COUNTRY !?

It's your position that is putting innocent people in harm's way. And you're disguising that cowardice as nobility. It's disgusting.

comment #43

BurmaShave says ...

"The fierce urgency of now."

I still don't know what that means.

Posted by: Dirty Harry

Obviously.

It was a cordial debate, but Obama landed some serious punches, including "Right on the first day". Hillary did nothing to stem his momentum. There's no way this is settled on Super Tuesday. At the very least, by killing her with kindness, I think he ensured his Vice Presidency.

comment #44

John Cocktosten says ...

Hilary came off as better qualified to be president. That's the long and short of it. She simply appeared more competent--and that's no knock on Obama. He needs to refuse the VP offer from Hilary, get down in the trenches for the next eight years, and be the force that keeps Hilary from making her occasional over-political judgment call (e.g., vote to authorize force in Iraq). Spend eight years as a huge force in the Senate with a large popular following and act as a friend to Hilary who nevertheless keeps her honest.

With this path, he can become president in 2009 at the still-tender age of 55 with full possession of all the necessary experience , both as a statesman and as a candidate. He will then continue to heal this country after the long, dark night of these last seven years.

comment #45

BurmaShave says ...

And the long dark night of the next eight years. Sounds good!

comment #46

Marcello says ...

Christ, we have to go through all of this again next year??!!

comment #47

Eric Stanton says ...

"There's no way this is settled on Super Tuesday."

Agreed. The Republican primaries on Tuesday are largely winner take all exercises. So McCain has an opportunity to settle the Republican contest Tuesday.

The Democratic primaries will reward delegates proportionally. Hillary may "win" California, but she's not taking all the delegates, and neither of them is likely to deliver a knock out punch Tuesday.

comment #48

rocco says ...

Don't you mean 2016, Dr. Rosenpenis?

Just an observation, you can make your own judgments, but am I the only one who thinks Hillary's cosmetic surgery is obvious? She's less goofy looking with a smaller nose and more chiseled features than her days as first lady, and she looks much younger than any road-weary 60 year old I know.

comment #49

George Prager says ...

First you have our friend Colonel Kurtz saying this:

"I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us."

Then you have the story coming out of Bagdad today:

Mentally impaired female bombers kill 64 in Baghdad markets
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxYiyBF5KBau8gcjMQUwnGJAt3TQ

And there's this:

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/gahflagspread.jpg

comment #50

Meegosh says ...

"Obama's a candidate that racists can vote for to prove to themselves that they're not racist. "

If a candidate is educated, well spoken, smart, and believes in the same principles and ideals that I do I would vote for him/her, weather he/she was black, white, red, or purple.
On the other hand, if he sags his pants below his ass, uses words you can't find in the dictionary, and dropped out of highschool at 16 they probably aren't getting my vote, again, regardless of the color. If that makes me racist then so be it.

Oh who am I kidding, if you are purple I'm not voting for your ass, that's just wierd.

comment #51

Monument says ...

"Obama's a candidate that racists can vote for to prove to themselves that they're not racist."

Or there are a whole bunch of white people in this country tired of being judged as racists simply because they are white.

comment #52

christian says ...

What the fuck is that moron Wolf Blitzer still doing up there? Why is this conservative (and yes he is) in charge of our democracy?

Any questions about media monopolies? No? What a surprise. So we can continue to be fed bullshit from whoever's in charge, like CNN the next time they want to pimp a war.

How fitting the debate was held in the Kodak. The smoke and mirrors hall of illusions and delusions.

And DH, despite the economic voodoo you righties have been pimping all year, even your deluded, drunken leader had to come out today to admit Things Are Tough All Over. And tho McCain is considered a liberal by Rush Limbo and others, he can't win on the Republican economic platform that offers Americans nothing more than outsourcing and golden parachutes for CEO's.
And war. War. War.

comment #53

rocco says ...

Any questions about media monopolies?

I presume you would have liked that question directed towards Hillary...what with her husband opening the floodgates and all...

...sorry, I know you're critical of the Clintons where appropriate christian, but had to bring it up...

...and you did have a voice in the debate last night...you could have submitted and/or voted on questions via politico (hoping and assuming they were censoring viewer-voted questions)...

comment #54

rocco says ...

...they WEREN'T censoring...

comment #55

christian says ...

I was critical of Bill Clinton in the 90's when he passed that wretched Telecom Act. He's the best friend FOX ever had. Of course Hillary isn't going to bring it up. She has nig bidness friends who make millions with this kind of constant anti-Sherman Trust monopolizing. A few of whom were in that wealthy "liberal" audience.

And like Ariana Huffington CHOSE to ignore the number one question she was given in her tea-time with Pelosi -- what about impeachment? -- there's no way CNN would choose actual questions Americans are thinking about. It is in fact censorship. It's a joke of democracy.

comment #56

BurmaShave says ...

As Joe Scarborough himself aptly said, McCain's platform is the promise of less jobs and more wars.

comment #57

BurmaShave says ...

And Prager, I think this exchange from Godfather II illuminates what you're saying just as well:

Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.

Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?

Michael Corleone: It means they could win.

comment #58

jeffmcm says ...

Good job in generally ignoring Dirty Harry, everyone.

Christian, you really have to realize that impeachment is not going to happen. I know, it sucks, it's not fair that a blowjob can trigger it but lying to the country to start a war won't, but that's the way it is. To try and start an impeachment battle will only lead to President McCain.

comment #59

jeffmcm says ...

Oh, and check out Vilmos, getting a seat well-beyond his below-the-line status just like Wells.

comment #60

christian says ...

"To try and start an impeachment battle will only lead to President McCain."

Because Bush/Cheney are so beloved.
And Clinton impeachment led to President Bush.

comment #61

jeffmcm says ...

No, Clinton impeachment led to high approval ratings for Clinton, because he could rally his base, and to the resignations of Gingrich and Livingston.

comment #62

Dirty Harry says ...

Christian: "And DH, despite the economic voodoo you righties have been pimping all year, even your deluded, drunken leader had to come out today to admit Things Are Tough All Over."

After a very long expansion with record low unemployment Bush is trying to avert a possible recession. Unemployment is still hovering at 5%. The lower than the rate which kept Clinton from getting thrown out of office.

And don't forget Bush inherited a recession from CLinton. Bush had to clean up his mess.

WELLS: I need your permission to us a quote of yours. Here's the context:

An Evil Republican Vice-President wants to pull American troops out of a developing country. We're sadly losing a hundred a month or so, but these troops are the only hope to keep untold thousands of non-white, non-Christian innocents from being butchered by raving madmen. But he wants to pull them out strictly for political gains.

LEFT-LEANING INTERN: "But Mr. Vice President, if we just up and leave, thousands will die!"

VICE PRESIDENT HANEY: "Will the changeover be pleasant? Will it be accomplished without bumps or bruises or blood or death? The answer, sadly, is "almost certainly not.""

I'm going to call it: THE PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL BANALITY OF EVIL

comment #63

Dirty Harry says ...

Oh, and hey, everyone, good job generally ignoring Jeffmcm.

comment #64

SpinDozer says ...

I don't think February of 2008 is a good time to initiate impeachment procedures against Bush, the damage he can do to the nation diminishes with each passing day. But Pelosi should be vigorously questioned at least once about her idiotic pledge. She's given the answer that she wanted to accomplish legislative priorities. OK, time has passed, did the legislative successes justify her decision, etc. Nixon, Reagan, & Clinton were all very popular Presidents and the public resented Congressional meddling. Bush is a very unpopular President, and the hearings which would almost certainly have produced charges of very High Crimes (and I'm not talking about fudging their way into a war) would have almost certainly increased the public's desire to see the matter resolved at trial...even with anemic hearings hamstrung by Pelosi, supporters of impeachment outnumbered Bush supporters by double digits. Pelosi should be confronted at least once and establish a public record to defend her decision.

comment #65

Josh Massey says ...

Me in previous thread: "Prediction: Wells starts to respect and perhaps even like Hillary after seeing her live."

Wells a few hours later: "I still found myself slightly warming to Hillary, being already permanently warmed up to Barack and against my better judgment. She was sharp, poised and very attuned."

Back sufficiently patted.

comment #66

George Prager says ...

Anyone who would type the phrase PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL without blushing is a person who would type this:

"My loathing for irony knows no bounds. It’s nothing more than laziness disguised as “cool.” It’s a way for the shallow Jon Stewarts and David Lettermans of the world to take no risks, ridicule everything, believe in nothing, and be rewarded for it.

Sinatra was a different kind of cool. Twenty-years before it was chic to defend civil rights, Sinatra was punching out hotel clerks for not letting black members of his band in. There was nothing detached about Sinatra. In the 60s he was a Kennedy man — in the 80s a Republican backing Reagan. And quietly, year after year after decade after decade, Sinatra did more fundraising concerts for charity than any other performer."

without blushing.

I guess those fake-drunk evenings onstage at the Sands with Dino and Sammy were Ibsen plays.

comment #67

ZacharyTF says ...

I doubt Jeff will read all the way to this comment, but I was watching Hardball on MSNBC and they were talking about the celebrities that were there last night and I kept waiting for them to show a shot of Rob Reiner so I could look for Jeff behind him.

They cycled through the celebrities and finally, they showed Rob and sure enough, I saw Jeff sitting behind him looking pissed off at the world, or maybe that was just his concentrating on what the talking person is saying face! :)

comment #68

Dirty Harry says ...

George, I get paid by the hits, so this is me thanking you, my friend.

comment #69

gruver1 says ...

Wells to ZacharyTF: I was concentrating very hard. I sometimes give off this scowling thing, I realize. I'm working hard on not doing that.

comment #70

Dirty Harry says ...

Oh, and, George, trust me there's stuff from back in the day much worse. Keep digging. And let me know if I can point you somewhere that's really embarrassing.

I'm here to help.

comment #71

George Prager says ...

You should get paid by the hits. I encourage everyone to look at the site. Very entertaining.

And anyone who thinks that Congress should impeach Bush and holds it against Congress for not doing so should take a time out. I can't think of a more ridiculous and pointless waste of time. It would be like members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences getting to together and trying to recall Dances With Wolves' Best Picture win.

comment #72

Dirty Harry says ...

Thanks, bro.

comment #73

SpinDozer says ...

'And anyone who thinks that Congress should impeach Bush and holds it against Congress for not doing so should take a time out.'

The time out is to freeze the kicker?

comment #74

christian says ...

I would be perfectly happy with Cheney's impeachment. Trust me, nobody would be outraged besides DH, mgmax and Townhall.com.

And the reason to impeach is stop a pre-emptive strike against Iran in the next months. Crazy I know, but crazier things have happened.

comment #75

christian says ...

Wimps:

SOLDIER SUICIDES AT RECORD LEVEL
Increase Linked to Long Wars, Lack of Army Resources

Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, a psychiatric outpatient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who was waiting for the Army to decide whether to court-martial her for endangering another soldier and turning a gun on herself last year in Iraq, attempted to kill herself Monday evening. In so doing, the 25-year-old Army reservist joined a record number of soldiers who have committed or tried to commit suicide after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Whiteside’s personal tragedy is part of an alarming phenomenon in the Army’s ranks: Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.

comment #76

D.Z. says ...

George: "Anyway, I think we can all agree on one thing. Barack and Hillary are the liberals and John McCain is the conservative. What I can't understand is all of the wingnuts who think John McCain is a liberal. I guess that makes Ronald Reagan a liberal."

Reagan was a liberal in the blowing a lot of money and corporate welfare sense of the word.

Harry: "Obama's gonna hand 25 million innocent Iraqis over to terrorists, but he pushed his chair in."

We already killed one million of them ourselves, and we're making no more progress than when we started. Hell, the Iraqis themselves don't mind being used as cannon fodder by the terrorists, if it gets rid of us. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080201/wl_mcclatchy/2835798

"Is the surge quelling the violence and routing al Queda? Well, except for those anecdotal car bombs that cheer liberals, yes."

So those recent attacks which are the worst since the surge began still doesn't mean to you that it's not working? http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1708983,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

"Will Iraqis die? Fuck 'em. It's but "bumps or bruises or blood or death." Bush must be proven wrong!"

He doesn't need to be proven wrong anymore, since history's done it for him.

"And, yeah, we're the martians. We're trying to kill or enslave an entire population. Love it when the liberal mind rears it's true compassion and strident anti-Americanism."

Nothing's more anti-American than neglecting our infrastructure and our vets for the sake of oil.

"After a very long expansion with record low unemployment Bush is trying to avert a possible recession. Unemployment is still hovering at 5%. The lower than the rate which kept Clinton from getting thrown out of office."

Clinton had a higher employment rate, though.

"And don't forget Bush inherited a recession from CLinton. Bush had to clean up his mess."

A recession with a surplus which is now nine trillion dollars in debt.

"We're sadly losing a hundred a month or so, but these troops are the only hope to keep untold thousands of non-white, non-Christian innocents from being butchered by raving madmen. But he wants to pull them out strictly for political gains."

I got news for you, Harry. The only madmen are our generals.

Marcello: "We WRECKED that place, and if we can keep things from becoming even more unbelievably chaotic, there's certainly a strong argument that we have a moral responsibility to stay."

The people who should be staying are the people voted for Bush in 2004, and still refuse to deny the war was a mistake. Funny that they have a problem enlisting, too...

Meegosh: "On the other hand, if he sags his pants below his ass, uses words you can't find in the dictionary, and dropped out of highschool at 16 they probably aren't getting my vote, again, regardless of the color."

So I take it you're not voting for Larry Craig...

jeff: "Christian, you really have to realize that impeachment is not going to happen."

Since when? Even if we make it to November with nothing happening, Bush still has two months left, and Congress wouldn't have to be hassled with the stigma for another two years. Anyway, Conyers hasn't denied it. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3490

"To try and start an impeachment battle will only lead to President McCain."

Just like prosecuting people like Larry Craig and Tom Delay led to a Republican majority in 2006. Oh, wait....!

comment #77

Eric Stanton says ...

Hey, the scowling was fine. Showed you were into it.

comment #78

jeffmcm says ...

Nothing to see in the post just above here, folks.

Harry: I'm not trying to be a troll who gets off on infuriating everyone else who posts, like you do and like DZ does.

comment #79

jeffmcm says ...

Whoops, I didn't mean Eric Stanton's post. Sorry.

comment #80

Eric Stanton says ...

No problem jeffmcm. Understood your point.

comment #81

Dirty Harry says ...

Trolling? I was responding to the guy who runs the site. Besides, any alternative POV you call trolling. Sad.

You were a hall monitor in middle school, weren't you? Come on, you were. Come on. Admit it. Clipboard? Overcome with your authority? I remember you. Fink.

comment #82

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, I will give you this credit: your initial post on this thread was not trolling. Your subsequent posts which devolve into name-calling and snide, snickering insults - the kind which show that you aren't really interested in solving this country's problems, just blasting those who disagree with you - are.

So you have my partial apology.

To answer your question above: no.

comment #83

jeffmcm says ...

I mean Harry (or whatever your real name is), seriously, we all know it feels good to rant and rave and cherry-pick quotes and come up with snide, meaningless mocking responses about how horrible Democrats are, but you're so much smarter than Daniel Zelter that it's a shame to stoop to his despicable level. Conversations are good. Two guys standing around yelling at each other, pointless.

comment #84

SpinDozer says ...

'And the reason to impeach is stop a pre-emptive strike against Iran in the next months.'

Actually, I think the 1st sign that impeachment is likely, is when Bush gives the order. The hearings etc., are as much about keeping the Republican-lite Senators like Webb & McCaskill from giving the telecoms immunity, etc., whatever Bush wish-list items that require 50 senate votes as well as putting pressure on certain Republicans. You could have video of a Bush menage a trois with a dead girl, live boy and everyone knows that McConnell, Inhofe would defend Bush, but what about Susan Collins?

comment #85

Dirty Harry says ...

I don't believe you: You were definitely a hall monitor. If not you should've been.

Really, name calling? It's just amazing to me how you continue to single me out. If I were a liberal doing the exact same thing you wouldn't say a word. And do you know how I know that? Because you don't.

I get hit. I hit back. You guys make fun of Bush, I make fun of your guys. Wells "trolls" with his red state attacks -- I have my say. Wells has lit into my ass more than once. Do I cry "Hall Pass?"

I've been called every name in the book on this site and don't in return become a little prig hall monitor. It's called mixing it up. At least DZ is consistent. It's consistently retarded, but it's consistent. So, are ALL the others.

You're the only who whines, "Ooh, don't play that way... that's not nice..." But only to me, of course. What about all the others on this thread mixing it up and calling names, you little hall monitor. (ooh, is calling you a hall monitor trolling...?)

If it's one set of rules for Conservatives on this site and one for those eager to usher in an Iraqi holocaust, just let me know.

comment #86

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, Daniel Zelter calls himself a liberal, and I bash him on a daily basis for being an idiot. And yes, Wells is a troll too. Paradoxically, he supports Obama for being a uniter, then routinely tries to defame and divide those who don't agree with him. On the other hand, Mgmax and Josh Massey don't lower themselves to your level on such a regular basis. Don't whine to me about a 'double standard'.

It shows me that you're disingenuous when you say you hate irony.

comment #87

jeffmcm says ...

Let me put it this way: I want to have a reasonable, rational discussion with you, devoid of such pointlessly incendiary phrases as 'fascist Republiscum' or 'Iraqi holocaust'. What do you need from the likes of me to make this happen? If your preference is just to 'get hit' and 'hit back' then I'm sure Zelter will oblige you.

comment #88

rocco says ...

MCM, Harry's got you...you give a pass to the impassioned few on this board who rant maniacally about Bush...you never call them out for their paranoia or inflammatory name-calling. I've been rabidly attacked in the past, not for taking a hard conservative stance, but for simply suggesting that there was another way to look at a particular issue not in lockstep with the liberal mob. Where were you defending reasonable and rational discussions then?

I think Harry errs is by going beyond a mere defense of Bush to what seems like admiration. I'm perfectly happy to bitchslap anyone who rants that Bush is the reason there was no snow during their Vermont vacation, but I'll stop short of giving him praise for anything. Yes he inherited a flagging economy from Clinton and our economy remained bullish in spite of that AND 9/11, but did he actually have a hand in that? Who really knows.

On a separate note, I have to say that I'm proud of SpinDozer...lately he/she's been articulate, confident, and affable without a hint of condescension. Bravo. (seriously). THAT is the way to have a constructive conversation, not by saying things like "good job ignoring douchebag"...

comment #89

Dirty Harry says ...

Jeff,

I'm mostly here to mix it up and have some laughs. I truly like the back and forth and you'd be surprised how many zingers directed at me crack me up especially when clever and deserved.

Just the other day THE Mike Binder called me a "prick." I called my mom.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making stuff up. I believe every word I say and sincerely do think you terrorist appeasers are gonna usher in an Iraqi holocaust, but this isn't a UN Chatroom, there's sawdust on the floor here. Let's throw some fuckin' chairs. Frequently, Wells intentionally posts begging for flame wars. I love it. I'm gamer than game.

Plus I'm hoping to change some minds. Call it the audacity of hope.

You asked what has to happen to have a serious dialogue, and my response is that a sincere question like that is a good start. I hope this response shows that.

comment #90

D.Z. says ...

Harry: The one million dead Iraqis don't count as a holocaust?

comment #91

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, it doesn't. Your response to my desire for a serious dialogue "I want to throw chairs" and to call me a 'terrorist appeaser' which is basically insulting and shows a lack of respect. Throw your chairs with the idiot man-child Zelter, I think anything else is a waste of time, and I say that as someone who has wasted a lot of time with him.

I say all this to you because I respect you and I welcome intelligent dialogue as a greater challenge and more rewarding.

comment #92

jeffmcm says ...

Oh, so since I don't want to let the 'terrorist appeaser' thing stand, Harry, you're an ignorant imperialist stooge who can only see the world in black and white. No American President will allow a country that we've screwed up as badly as Iraq to fall into the hands of the Iranians, except for unelectable morons like Paul or Kucinich. Zelter might be a racist idiot who hates Iraqis and wants them all to die (so does your boy Pat Dollard) but I don't.

comment #93

jeffmcm says ...

In fact, I'm even more pissed off than I realize. You say in one sentence that you think Democrats are going to launch a genocide, and in another sentence "I come here for laughs". I guess you don't hate irony after all, or the cognitive dissonance inherent in being a conservative has taken over your brain like a cancer.

comment #94

D.Z. says ...

jeff: The Iranians don't care about Iraq, because they don't need that sectarian bullshit on their own turf. And I don't hate Iraqis; I just prefer Americans without health care.

comment #95

Dirty Harry says ...

Jeff:

Now we're throwing some fuckin' chairs! Yay-ah!

Let me put it this way. Hillary used to be reasonable on the war, but her party made her pay for it in Iowa, so now she and Mr. Fierce Audacity are playing NAME THAT TUNE to see who can abandon the Iraqis in the fewest number of months (sure to be weeks by March).

That, my friend is psychotic. And anyone who votes for that is a heartless psychotic, and pushing that voting lever -- sealing the doom of who knows how many innocents -- is no different than the dead-eyed bureaucrat pressing the red button thousands of miles away that kills.

You're the pseudo-intellectuals (sorry Prager) who came up with moral equivalence -- so I would think you'dd see it here when it's kissing you on the mouth.

Oppose the war? Fine.

Thing Bush is a ChimpyMcSmirkerHitler? Fine.

That's politics. But a pull-out is life and death.

You all know what will happen when we pull out of Iraq because you saw the chaos when there were 120,000 American troops last year. You saw how many innocent civilians died when there were 120,000 troops last year. Now imagine NONE.

We have a moral obligation, not as Americans or Republicans, but as human beings to protect the Iraqi for 100 years if nece