Exactly, but that was of course the point she was cut off: Thank you, senator, but we have more important topics to cover like - who stole which campaign slogan from whom..?

I'd like to see that argument be put forward outside a university campus. While I agree with the objective content, Clinton was sucking up here, no doubt.

who stole which campaign slogan from whom..?

Yes, where did an issue that silly and pointless ever come from?

While I agree with the objective content, Clinton was sucking up here, no doubt.

Man, you Obama supporters won't ever drop it, will you? "While I agree with her statement that the weather was beautiful yesterday, she was sucking up to meteorologists, no doubt."

Man, you Obama supporters won't ever drop it, will you?

Now, be fair. Norm has been posting one critical article after another on Obama and this causes the Obama supporters to lash out in response.

Anyway, this was a very good point that Hillary Clinton made and it also annoyed me that she was cut off. I was proud of her for saying this.

this causes the Obama supporters to lash out in response.

right, they can be "caused" to do things because they are shiny-eyed cult members who turn like sunflowers in the direction of the source of any criticism of their messiah...BOO!

LOL Jonathan.

Speaking of health care, Theowne an another thread linked to an excellent article from Daily Kos which lists many of Obama's accomplishments (this person did their homework!)

But curiously, her big bill to deliver health care to every child, the one she lauds on her website, S.895 : "A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes" had not a single co-sponsor. Not one, according to the Library of Congress. Why is that? Is it a bad bill? Or is she not able to recruit support for her signature issue? Or did she just submit it simply to put in the hopper, so to speak, so she could claim she was working on it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I find it curious and suspicious that not even Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it. Its sister bill in the house, H.R. 1535, introduced by John Dingell has 42 co-sponsors. It's just weird. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

I haven't analyzed this myself yet, but it does demonstrate that any health care reform is going to be very difficult.

Oops... this should have gone on the health care thread... oh well..

Too many posts to keep up with! So many issues.. So little time..

This was my favorite moment of the debate as well (I know, I know, as an Obama supporter, I really should have enjoyed a more stirring declaration from the The Great Leader To Be, himself, that warmed the cockles of my cultish heart but, alas...)

I thought friesfries did a good job identifying another issue: Here are Clinton and Obama, insisting that they talk about the details of a policy that potentially will affect the lives of almost everyone. But no, no, no, no: let's have a he said/she said conversation about who used what slogan, when, and whether they provided appropriate citation to their national campaign co-chairs.

"Silly season in politics" was my second favorite (due, no doubt, to my hypnotic fixation with The Great Leader to Be's voice, which is talking a lot of policy these days).

I love Obama. I love Clinton slightly less. Either one will do a hell of a job in office. OK. That's out of the way. Flame as you like.

What I love more than the 'science' comment was the crowd's reaction. I realize it was a university setting, but it is heartening to hear such enthusiasm for science. It gives me hope.

I really should have enjoyed a more stirring declaration from the The Great Leader To Be, himself, that warmed the cockles of my cultish heart but, alas...)

mWAHAHAhaha... (or however one does that cynical laugh)

LOL!

that warmed the cockles

Oh no! You said "cockles"! For shame! That is similar to using the word "niggardly"!

What psychological personality tests reveal about Clinton, Obama and McCain.

http://www.slate,com/id/2184696/pagenum/3/

interesting read!

Despite their attempts to draw (somewhat artificially strong) distinctions from each other, I thought these debates were about as one can realistically expect. I would be OK with either candidate, and find the prospect of having either as president to be so much better than having to listen to McCain or (even worse) any of his Republican adversaries for 4 or more years.

As a scientist, of course, I can't agree more with Hillary in this clip.

This was good moment. So was the one where she said we'd all breathe a sigh of relief when Bush was gone. Austin's the only place in Texas where she could get away with saying that!

I would like another format to the debates, as would many of us. I propose that there be separate interviews held with each candidate the day prior to the debate. Ask the candidates questions about the burning issues. Air the answers side by side as the pre-game show on debate night. Then, enforce an actual debate, not campaign mantras and sound bites: start with the answers where the candidates deviate from each other, so there'll actually be some back and forth. Let them go at it for awhile, as Clinton and Obama did on health care, even though CNN wanted to move on. Oh how I'd love to see this happen when it's Dem vs. GOP especially.

Wake me up from my dream now.

That this was a top part of the debate speaks to the mediocre quality of public political discourse. And if we can agree - Norm - that she was "sucking up", what becomes of her sincerity in making such a statement?

There is a "war on science" now.. The Simpsons nailed this 10 odd years ago... what percentage of angels again?

What, you don't think someone can suck up and be sincere?

Maybe, but in most cases "sucking up" implies the subject is being manipulative, which calls the person's motivations - and thus their sincerity - into question. There's a correlation, and I think that's all that was being asserted.

However. Both Hillary and Obama are politicians, and singling a candidate out for being "politiciany" is pointless; everyone should already be taking each candidate's words with a grain of salt.

Their goal here is to get votes, not enlighten you with their knowledge and wisdom.