"I voted one way on Kyl-Lieberman, you voted the other way" is pure policy disagreement.

The sort of thing Republicans seldom do.

Are policy disagreements fair game?
They should be the core...no matter the party or the fight. But when one slight is cast or one teaspoon of mud is thrown...it escalates instantly. Sign of the times.

Kyl-Lieberman was voted on this year, and Think Progress has a juicy quote from Jim Webb.

So, if we are talking about a debate between Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, then I don't understand what Stephanie is talking about when she says,

Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 18, 2007 1:49:10 PM

What about "You voted for Kyl-Lieberman and I wouldn't have, if I had been in that chamber then?"

I agree with Edwards. There was no mudslinging at the debate. It was pure theatrics for Hillary, and Richardson the guy who is running for her Vice President slot to be using that term.

After falling on her face in the Philadelphia, it was interesting watching the Clinton machine setting up the debate and doing its thing in Las Vegas in all its splendor. Hillary adviser Carville and Bill adviser Gergen doing CNN's post debate spin. The pressuring of Gov. Spitzer to drop his driver's license plan. The pre-debate grooming of Wolf Blitzer, Bill's whining to the media that Hillary was being "ganged up on" by the "boys", Hillary not (ah-hem)playing the gender card in her speeches, CNN giving out 1,000 debate tickets to UNLV, with only 100 making their way into the hands of the students. The audience members frequently interupting Edwards and Obama, with no restraint by Wolf or CNN. The revelations that one questioner was forced to drop her nukes question in favor of asking Hillary whether she liked pearls or diamonds. And now the revelations today that 6 of the "undecided voters" that CNN lined up to ask the candidates questions were actually democratic party operatives.

The Clinton machine is alive and well folks! But is that what America really wants? Planted questions? Straw man China town donations? Secret deals and schemes?

If Edwards was slinging "mud" at Hillary in the debate, it was her "mud" she created herself by her actions and votes.

We need to judge candidates by what they've done, not what they say they are going to do. Bringing up past actions is perfectly legit. "Actions speak louder than words" and you know some candidates will say anything to get elected.

You people actually watch this crap? The Military Industrial Media Complex doesn't give a flying fig about your choice for candidate, they have already set the stage for who they want. Leslie "Wolf" Blitzer is just another tool more interested in gotcha journalism (his own ego) than the country.

You could have been watching the Beaver crush WSU.

Monroe Sweetland told me about a politico of his past who dodged difficult questions by pointing his thumb upward and retorting confidently, "I'm alright on that issue", and then walking away.

That is a lot like Clinton's attempt to speak whatever voters want to hear, even if her second statement contradicts her first. Primary opponents have the choice of confronting her inconsistency or giving her a pass.

Clinton seemed particularly upset by questions about who supports her campaign financially. To avoid this issue is to avoid the grim reality of US politics. To confront it sheds a little light to cut the fog of obfuscation. Of course, Hillary Clinton is not the only politician bankrolled by powerful self-interested rich folk, but she stands out among the current Democratic presidential candidates as the darling of such special interests.

And Edwards is correct. The primary battles have been mild compared to what the Republicans will unleash next fall.

HOT OFF THE PRESS!

Apparently the people in Iowa are not being assimilated by Clinton Machine.

Per ABCNews.com

November 19, 2007

"Obama 30, Clinton 26, Edwards 22 -- that's where things stand in Iowa among likely caucus-goers according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll."

"Since ABC's July poll of Iowa Democrats, Hillary Clinton's support has remained unchanged while John Edwards has moved -4 and Barack Obama has moved +3 (both within sampling tolerances)."

"A growing focus on fresh ideas coupled with lingering doubts about Hillary Clinton's honesty and forthrightness are keeping the Democratic presidential contest close in Iowa," writes ABC Polling Director Gary Langer. Among those who say they're "absolutely certain" to attend a caucus, Obama has 28 percent with Clinton at 26 percent and Edwards at 23 percent."

"According to Langer's analysis, Clinton has "a particular problem in Iowa with men" -- just 19 percent support versus her 31 percent support among women. (Obama and Edwards both lead her among men, and Richardson is within sampling error)."

"Also problematic for Clinton: 55 percent of likely Democratic voters in Iowa say they're more interested in a "new direction and new ideas" than in strength and experience, compared with 49 percent in July -- a help to Obama, who holds a substantial lead among "new direction" voters."

Marissa, Nothing that Howard Dean or Dick Gephardt or any of the other candidates said in the 2004 primary was fodder for the worst of the 2004 attacks on Kerry---the Swifties. The other attacks (windsurfing, "he looks French", don't buy Heinz ketchup, "voted for it before he voted against it" ) were not from Democratic primary candidates, but from the fertile minds of attack dogs of the Karl Rove persuasion.

Hillary Clinton is center stage in every CNN debate.

Why don't they just endorse Hillary Clinton and stop pretending to care about what the electorate wants?

<h2>Shame on the audience for booing Edwards and Obama when they simply pointed out the obvious. Obama's suggestions getting rid of the ceiling for Social Security taxes (for people w/ an AGI of $97,00.00/year) is undoing what was done during the Reagan administration when they created the "Social Security Trust Fund" and capped off contributions. Hillary crying "tax hike on the middle class" reinforced Edward's charge.</h2>