Democratic Debate Open Thread III

Okay...let's start another thread. This debate is at least interesting. Russert is his typically annoying self-important self and Brian Williams, well, Brian Williams is well scripted at least.

10:15 PM: Question for all the candidates -- Are people in northern states doomed to pay high oil costs -- given that oil is heading to $100+ per barrel? Dodd gets the first question -- and he invites us to his website www.chrisdodd.com to see his answers on energy. They all only have 30 seconds on this one....Everyone talks about energy efficiency and conservation. Biden and Obama note that costs increased because of the war mongering over Iran. Kucinich reiterates his call for impeachment. Richardson wants an "Apollo Program" with 50 mpg efficiency. He's very specific about what he means -- and that people have to sacrifice (what a concept, huh?)

10:22 PM: Dodd is very strong on energy policy and the need for leadership. He claims to have the best, the "gold-standard" policy.

10:25 PM: Russert starts on taxes asking Hillary is she supports Rep. Charlie Rangel's new tax proposal. She agrees with his goal on the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM). She also invokes the concept of sacrifice -- and the need for sacrifice from the richest Americans. Also, notes GOP won't deal with AMT because that tax affects the middle class and not the GOP's constituency.

Obama wants a restoration of balance in our tax code.

10:31 PM: Kucinich gets a question about hedge funds and the failure of the Democrats in the Senate to take up the issue of changing the tax code for those billionaires. Kucinich is right that this is one of those issues that make people wonder about Democrats. And, he manages to work in his call for impeachment again.

Edwards is asked why Democrats won't act on the hedge fund issue. Edwards said they should...and this shows again the corruption of Washington. He provides evidence of a "system that does not work." The voice of the American people needs to be heard....

10:35 PM: Lightening rounds with 30 second answers. Question one is about education -- extending the school day or the school year. Richardson is happy to have an education question and is ready for it. All of them have good education plans and believe in public education. What a concept.

10:44 PM: Back from a break with more "lightening round" -- this question is about attracting more students to medicine. Again, everyone has an answer....Biden wants to prevent the insurance companies from looking over the shoulders of doctors. Edwards wants universal health care and makes the important and often overlooked point about the nursing shortage. Hillary wants to get tough with insurance companies. The culprit is clearly the insurance industry.

10:50 PM: Question about improving air travel for Barack Obama.

10:52 PM: Immigration question for Hillary Clinton. She sounded like she agreed with NY Governor Spitzer that illegal immigrants should have drivers licenses. Dodd thinks not. But, then Clinton said she didn't agree with Spitzer creating a back and forth with Dodd. So, I think she thinks that Spitzer is trying to do the right thing...but she doesn't agree with him...or something like that.

Edwards went after Clinton on that answer on immigration...as did Obama. He can't tell if she's for it or against it.

10:57 PM: Russert had to ask Kucinich the UFO question. Then, he asked Obama if he thinks there is life beyond earth...Obama doesn't know, but pointed out that we're not taking care of life on earth. Stupid, stupid question from Russert, smart answer from Obama.

10:59 PM: Lance Armstrong gets a question about cancer.

11:01 PM: Biden would shut down any toy imports from China.

11:02 PM: Stupid, stupid question from Brian Williams to Obama about Halloween.

It's over.

Phew.

Okay, this one was a real debate. The most interesting issue was Iran. We have not heard the last of that one. And that immigration answer from Hillary Clinton was bizarre. I still don't know what she said. Read More......

Democratic Debate Open Thread II

MSNBC took a break...so we'll start a new thread. This is really a debate. And, in fact, Hillary Clinton is being attacked. Her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution (written by neocons according to John Edwards) has given her opponents the fodder. And, it's not just coming from Edwards and Obama, but Dodd and Biden have been very strong, too.

At this point, I'd say Edwards is having a good night.

9:42 PM: The question is electability. Brian Williams quoted Rudy to challenge Hillary. She uses the GOP "obsession" with her as proof of her electability. Russert followed up on her experience question wanting her to allow the National Archives to release her records from the Bill Clinton years. Apparently, Bill Clinton wrote to the archives asking them to not release any correspondence between Bill and Hillary. She actually did not answer the question that she would allow it. Somehow, it's not her responsibility. Obama went right after her on that one. He also said the GOP is obsessed with Hillary because that's a fight they've had and want again.

Edwards also said the Republicans want to run against Clinton. He also turned it into a question on the influence of money in politics...and how Clinton represents the status quo. He represents change.

9:51 PM: Brian Williams asks Obama the experience question. Obama knows how to get things done, he says. He will also stand up to special interests. And, he reminds us that he stood against the war in 2002. We need principled leadership and that's what he'll give us.

9:53 PM: Richardson is hearing a holier than thou attitude towards Hillary Clinton, which he thinks is getting personal. We need to be positive he says -- as Richardson tells us he trusts her, but doesn't agree with her on a whole litany of issues. That sanctimonious thing doesn't really work.

9:56 PM: Dodd -- we need to elect a Democrat...a Democrat that's electable. Hmmm.

9:57 PM: Edwards lets us know he's not pure...none of them are, but disputes Richardson's assertion that the attacks are personal.

9:59 PM: Biden isn't running against Hillary Clinton, he's running to be the leader of the free world. Biden smacks Rudy Giuliani hard. Rudy is genuinely not qualified to be President. Every sentence Rudy speaks has a noun, a verb and 9/11. Good line.

10:02 PM: Russert starts a new subject -- Social Security. Wants to know if Hillary has different positions on lifting the cap intimating she answers one way publicly and another privately. She, of course, disputes that contention and gets into the good work done in the 90s. She's going to appoint a bi-partisan commission. She does not advocate raising the cap. Acting like Social Security is in crisis is a GOP talking point according to Hillary.

10:05 PM: Russert asks Obama about Social Security. Obama wants straight talk from all the candidates -- which means Hillary Clinton, p.s.

10:08 PM: Hillary returns to her solution of a bi-partisan commission. She doesn't want decisions to be made in a vacuum, but only after we've gotten back to fiscal responsibility.

10:09 PM: Obama gets the question about Mitt Romney's confusion of calling him "Osama" instead of "Obama." Obama isn't worried because he has confidence in the American people -- and he discounts what Mitt Romney says. He's going to respond to swiftboating forcefully. (Methinks Obama may have too much confidence in the American people). Read More......

Democratic Debate Open Thread

Okay, game on. Over the past months of watching way too many Republican and Democratic Presidential candidate debates, it's been much easier to live blog -- and MOCK -- the GOPers. I largely agree with the Democrats and nne of them has to be the next President.

We've been led to believe that tonight's debate could get interesting. Both John Edwards and Barack Obama have been talking tougher about Hillary Clinton. Let's see how it goes.

The debate is being broadcast live on MSNBC and will be re-broadcast on Telemundo.

9:00 PM: Here we go.

In the first questions posed to Obama and Edwards, they were given the chance to attack Clinton. Edwards did a much, much better job of defining his differences with Hillary. She was obviously prepared for the attack. Edwards focused on Iran, which Hillary did not address. She has a lot of "specific plans."

9:09 PM: Because Hillary didn't address Iran, Russert asked her why she voted for Kyl-Lieberman's resolution. She prefers "vigorous diplomacy." (But isn't that what she said she voted for in 2002 on the Iraq resolution.)

Russert followed up on Iran with Dodd who said this issue is going to come back to haunt us and what we didn't learn in '02, we should have learned now. OUCH. He's right, of course.

Biden, on the Iran vote, said there are consequences for what we do. (Biden and Dodd voted against Kyl-Lieberman.) Biden said the vote emboldened Bush.

9:15 PM: Continuing on Iran, Obama responds on Iran and when he would go to war what Brian William calls "the red line"...a question Obama rejected noting the "drumbeat of war" is coming from the GOP debates.

Hillary Clinton also got asked the "red line" question. She sounds very, very defensive on the Iran question. That Kyl-Lieberman vote undermines much of what she's saying. She "wants to start diplomacy." (Again, we've heard that before from her.)

9:19 PM: Edwards said Kyl-Lieberman sounds like it was written by the neocons. Noting some of us learned from our mistakes on Iraq, you give Bush an inch, he takes a mile. That resolution enabled Bush and let him "march forward." He asks how is that Democrats standing up to Bush?

(Richardson finally gets a question at 9:20 P.M.)

9:25 PM: Russert asks them all if they can pledge that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb when they are President. Obama gave a great answer on how Americans have been governed by the politics of fear -- sounding very much like Paul Krugman's excellent column yesterday, btw.) Both Biden and Dodd refocused the question and said that Pakistan poses a much bigger problem -- and both of them sound very, very competent on this issue. Kucinich took an appropriate swipe at the media -- telling them not to promote another war, which the media did in 2002. Very good point about not ratcheting up the rhetoric for war.

9:32 PM: Onto the issue of the pending war in Iraq. We learn that Hillary does in fact oppose the war in Iraq, but not the troops.

Obama says Hillary is not being consistent on Iraq, citing the Iran resolution. The next President can't be a co-author of the war.

Edwards wants to make certain that voters understand they have very clear choices...if you believe combat troops should stay in Iraq with no timetable, then Senator Clinton is your candidate. He wants to end combat missions. Edwards also goes back to Iran...smacks Hillary with her "if I only knew then what I know now..." He says Hillary has shifted from primary mode to general election mode..and candidates need to be consistent.

9:37 PM: Hillary fights back that she is for ending the war, but it's going to be complicated and it's going to take time. She's going to do it responsibly -- and she wants to fight al Qaeda in Iraq. Read More......

Supreme Court stays execution, may be imposing de facto moratorium on lethal injecctions until next year

Interesting.

The Court blocked the execution until it decides a separate, pending case next year on whether death by lethal injection is so cruel and unusual it violates the Constitution.

"Right now I think we have a de facto moratorium on lethal injections in this country," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the anti-capital punishment Death Penalty Information Center.

The Court's order will bring capital punishment across the United States to a sudden stop. It's the third time in a month the Justices have blocked an execution.

Read More......

GOP prez candidates refusing to attend 2nd black presidential debate

Then again, it's yet another debate that the Congressional Black Caucus decided to host with anti-black FOX News, so I'm hardly going to shed a tear here. But, it still shows just how much the GOP does not want to engage the black community. Read More......

The UN in Iraq?

Mark Goldberg posts an interesting discussion with James Traub about the role (and possible expanded role) of the UN in Iraq. I'm often more skeptical of the UN than many of my political/ideological peers, but I think it's also fair to say that one of the reasons the UN sometimes struggles with its missions is that it mostly gets called in when a situation is damn near hopeless. That interferes, obviously, with a group's winning percentage.

(I should also note that my doubts about the UN often have been mitigated or alleviated by reading Goldberg's excellent postings at UN Dispatch; there are plenty of UN actions that seem questionable at first blush but are, in fact, perfectly reasonable and productive when explained -- like this, for example -- and if international relations/politics/institutions are of interest to you, well, there's another one for the blogroll.)

Anyway, since I don't think any external actor can do much in Iraq (save perhaps Iran), I don't think the UN is likely to turn things around. However, to be fair, should the UN have more involvement, the goal wouldn't be to make things all better, but to mitigate some of the fallout and atrocities -- a job at which the US is failing. As Traub says,

It is the melancholy destiny of the UN to be called on in the most desperate situations when everyone else has thrown up their hands or nobody else cares. Here is a case where people care desperately, but there doesn't seem to be any path to success. So, this is one of the besetting problems of the UN: it may be called on, then fail, then be blamed. But you can't say "we are not going to try because it will look bad if we fail." That's not how the UN thinks.

Ultimately the US will have to work with international institutions -- and Iraqis themselves -- to mitigate whatever problems can still be reasonably addressed. Fear of looking bad is an unconscionable reason for not doing the right thing -- however popular that idea might be among Republican presidential candidates, for example -- and the absence (or at least reduction) of such fear in non-governmental organizations is a reason for hope that they'll have some beneficial impact in the mid- and long-term. Read More......

Cheney with a new hunting story

The Vice President does another round of canned hunting at a private club that is proud to display the stars and bars. Instead of shooting someone in the face, this year, he decides to slap Americans in the face. Normal people would be embarrassed to support a club that thinks that it's OK to display the Confederate flag but then again, most people would also find it pretty pathetic to shoot farm raised birds. What a sad little man. Read More......

New t-shirts from AMERICAblog

All of the below are now available in the AMERICAblog.com store:



And who can forget our "Happy Gay" collection (what's a Happy Gay? Read this):







And finally, there's that time-honored classic:

Read More......

Max Blumenthal attends the Values Voters summit

Gotta watch this one. Read More......

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Big debate among the Democratic Presidential candidates tonight on MSNBC. The Iowa caucuses are officially scheduled for January 3rd -- only 66 days til real voters actually start the process. The contenders are turning up the heat so this debate could actually be interesting. Although, we need real answers. And, we really need to know that the Senators on the stage are prepared to prevent Bush from starting a war with Iran.

Okay, get started. Read More......

Warren Buffet sees US heading for a near-term recession

Who are you going to believe? The bullish Cheney and GOP crowd who grounded the economy or a billionaire who makes a living in the market? Read More......

Just in time for Christmas

More lead in toys for kids. China keeps coming up but while that's to be noted, the real problem continues to be big companies that don't mind selling for a premium, but are uninterested in premium testing or modern product management that traces the process from creation to production and into the market.

Retailers and manufacturers have stepped up product testing, as high levels of lead can cause brain damage in children.

"We screened products from stores and consumers' homes in the New York metropolitan area using home lead testing kits and an X-ray fluorescence analyzer," the magazine article reads.

Consumers Union said some of the products it tested included a Fisher-Price blood pressure cuff from a toy medical kit, caps from seven Elmer's Glue Sticks and some duck-shaped backpacks.

"We detected the highest concentration of total lead, more than 10,000 parts per million, in a cuff that a child had regularly played with for the past two years," the group wrote.

The caps were on glue sticks decorated with cartoon characters and were all orange colored, the group added.

"What we envision is that a child will pull the cap off with their teeth will potentially chew on it," Donald Mays, who heads product safety planning for the group, said in a telephone interview.

Read More......