Breath, Just Breath

Via InDecision 2008 whose commenters note that the 10 point McCain lead in the USA/Gallup Poll is a poll of likely voters, which includes 6% unregistered (thus ineligible to be) voters. The daily tracking is of registered voters only, and has McCain up by 4% over the same time period by the same pollster.

It still sux, any way you cut it, but there's your convention bounce for Palin and old Whatshisname.

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

[snip]

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

Relaxed? Good. They call it a bounce because what goes up also comes down. The GOP just got a tremendous shot of adrenaline with the Palin pick. They're energized for the first time. We've been at it for 18 months while they've just been going through the motions.

This this is still within the margin of error more or less and the electoral map still favors us so far. But things can change, and will. Historically debates have been make or break time for presidential candidates, ever since the first televised one destroyed Nixon.

That doesn't mean be complacent, and this should be a wake-up call to anyone who thought the GOP wouldn't show up in the Fall. It should also be a reminder to anyone still re-living the battles of the primaries that it's Go Time now.

The debate schedule calls for one between Obama and McCain in a town hall format on September 26th followed by the Biden vs Palin side-show October 2nd. Two more sit-downs follow on October 7th and 15th.

The organizers are trying to eliminate the spin-room circus -- which only means they'll move outside (I hope it rains) and the candidates will be allowed to ask each other questions while the moderators try and keep a time limit of 10 minutes per subject (good luck with that).

The last thing voters will see before they vote about three weeks after the last debate is McCain sputtering and lying and acting thugish and confused. It's all good, as soon as we catch our breath.

Obligatory Post Debate Reaction

Hillary, please don't quit your day job and go out on the stand-up comedy circuit.

Other than that, now you know why John Edwards is still polling at 9% here in the Buckeye State.

He's still on the ballot here, hmm......

Did anyone else get the feeling that these two were just going through the motions, that they (especially Obama) know it's over.

I usually like debates. What, you think I do this for my health? The fame and fortune? I need none of these trifles. I watch debates and blog about it for the love of .. for the, uh ... for the love of God why do I torture myself so? This one was down right boring and I kept zoning out.

It wasn't as bad as some of the GOP debates, but even they were more exciting since they kept me more involved shouting obscenities at the television. I think I only managed one F-bomb tonight.

My best moment was when at long last Obama finally showed ever so subtly that he'd had just about enough of her when she said he would bomb Pakistan.

His eyes did a quick roll-over and he softly went, "Pfft!" and let her continue, waiting his turn to set the record straight.

After a week of called a liar and being compared to Bush and Karl Rove, Obama did an outstanding job keeping his cool when she did to him exactly what she bitched about him doing to her -- right in his face. (Yeah yeah, bitch is a misogynist descriptor. Quit yer bitchin'.)

If anyone's minds were changed/made-up as a result of this debate I'd be shocked, especially after 18 minutes of the opening focusing on the minutiae of two health care plans that are as about as different as night and later that same night. I think their greatest contribution to health care is now we have recordings of this debate to use as a cure for insomnia.

Generic Pre-Debate Blog Post

So the narrative running up to the debate at my alma mater tonight is, "How will Hillary turn things around?" Will she go negative/aggressive. Will nice-Hillary or nasty-Hillary show up. Even if she hits a "home run" will it be enough?

Do I have that right?

[Dear media tools: that's "Convocation Center," not "Convention" Center.]

Note that the story isn't about what Obama will do, that the nomination is his to lose with all the momentum he's gained over the last month.

I'm not complaining, just making the observation. Obama is just chugging along -- saturating the airways, overloading auditoriums -- which is boring to write or talk about. Hillary may or may not hit on a winning strategy, but it certainly seems like her campaign is trying anything and everything hoping something sticks. It certainly is interesting if nothing else.

Tonight very well may be the last time we see these two in a debate. That alone makes it significant. I believe that as long as Obama keeps his cool, he wins. Senator Clinton needs to win "Tiny Tuesday" by such a significant margin even Texas and Ohio "wins" won't be enough unless she scores a true blow-out. A good debate performance is just one step, and probably not enough.

What she really needs is something she can't control, which is the unstated truth that this nomination is now Obama's to lose, and he can if he finally "loses it." She needs him to try some kind of, "There you go again" moment that lacks any sense of graciousness.

Hillary needs to goad Barack into saying, "Shut up, Bitch."

Ain't ever going to happen, but wow, would that be good TV.

No Wonder They Were On Fox

Because only the ignorant fools who get their news from Faux Noise would believe half of this crap they spewed at their debate, one the N.H. GOP Party wouldn't even be a part of.

Factcheck.org:

• Romney claimed that the 47 million Americans who lack health care are not covered because they say "I'm not going to play. I'm just going to get free care paid for by everybody else." Experts say that very few who are offered insurance turn it down and that the uninsured get worse care.
  
  
• Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that occurred in large part under President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. He said that “the Army had been at 725,000; it’s down to 500,000.” That’s true, but it was down to 572,423 by the time Clinton took office.
  
  
• McCain recalled that he "strongly disagreed" with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and had "no confidence" in his Iraq strategy "at the time." But he didn't say publicly that he had no confidence in Rumsfeld until December 2004, after Bush was reelected and well after the war began.
  .
• Romney falsely denied that an attack ad called McCain’s immigration bill "amnesty," though it does. One of his Web ads also attacks McCain for supporting "amnesty." He conceded during the debate that McCain’s bill "technically" isn’t amnesty.

• Giuliani claimed that "economists" say health insurance rates would fall by up to 50 percent if millions more shopped for policies individually. Once again, his campaign was unable to produce a single economist who supports that figure.
  
  
• Romney claimed his Massachusetts state insurance program had reduced the number of uninsured in Massachusetts by 300,000. That’s the number who have gained coverage under the system, but many were covered previously through other means.

Over at FactCheck.org, they go into full blown detail on the mendacity.

Stupid Rhetoric Of Presidential Sloganeering

Thursday: 33 Iraqis Killed, 32 Wounded
Wednesday: 72 Iraqis Killed, 177 Wounded

During today's excruciatingly dull debate, where the candidates talked about boring issues like how they intend to pay for all the change the Democrats promise to bring to Washington, Hillary Clinton summed up the differences in approaches between herself, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Some demand change (Edwards)
Some hope for change (Obama)
I will work hard for change (Hillary)

I want to break this down a bit.

Trey Ellis reminds us today that Justice Fredrick Douglass said, "Power Concedes Nothing Without Demand." Senator Edwards has been promising to fight the rich and powerful on our behalf, take it to them. I have long been of the opinion that little will change in this nation unless the true sovereign of this country, the people through their elected representatives, limit the influence of the powerful and protect those who are subject to the whims and fancy of the greed driven corporatists. To me, an essential function of a post-feudal democracy is to prevent or at least temper their ability to exploit the working class folks.

My worst fear is that if our elected representatives fail in this duty, the entire apparatus comes crashing down. We're a patient people, and easily distracted. But when push comes to shove, an enraged public can push back pretty hard.

We can and should lay down the law to the corporations and moneylenders that have bought and sold the temple that was our most hallowed democratic institutions. Simply hoping for it won't do. As the ultimate sovereign, we can and should lay down that law -- because we make the laws. They are our laws. They do not belong to K-Street or The Decider. They define who we are and we define what those laws say.

Offering a new face, a fresh and friendly approach does nothing if you con't acknowledge there are points of no return -- positions that the entrenched power brokers will not relinquish willingly under any incentive. If Obama truly believes that the hope for change he represents is enough to melt the conservative heart, he's never been turned down for a loan, or faced that "wet your pants moment" where you have to decide whether to take you chances in a trial or accept a plea bargain or settlement. Real life decisions are unnaturally academic to professor types, even those who taught law.

Working hard for change is noble, indeed required. Presidenting is hard work after all. But working towards a deal is not the same as working towards a goal. Change for change sake alone is meaningless. Hillary says, and probably believes that she will work hard for us. We need more than someone who will work hard, we need someone who will fight hard.

The exploitive energy cartels, criminal telecos, corrupt military industrialists and predatory financial institutions are who we, the people, need her to fight against. Unfortunately they are the very organizations who in large part have funded Clinton's campaign. Perhaps they know something we don't. Something we should be afraid of.

We need hope, and we need to work hard. For Hillary to imply that Obama or Edwards will not work hard was a callous rhetorical trick. And if she cannot offer us hope, why on earth should we bother to even go out and vote.

But we can, and should, demand better. We can demand better from our government just as we demand better from ourselves.

We did not negotiate with the British crown for more autonomy to create our republic. We demanded that our basic rights as free human beings be recognized and demanded our independence from a despot. Women who demanded their right to vote paved the way for Hillary to seek this high office. African Americans demanded their god-given civil rights which give us hope for a better tomorrow every day.

You do indeed demand justice, then work hard for it -- or you have no hope of getting it.

There was a palace that was a city. It was a palace! It was a palace and it can be a palace again! A palace in which there is no king or queen or dukes or earls or princes, but subjects all -- subjects beholden to each other, to make a better place to live. Is that too much to ask? Are we asking too much for this? Is it beyond our reach?! Because if it is, then we are nothing but sheep being herded to the final slaughterhouse! I will not go down that way!! I choose to fight back!!! I choose to rise, not fall! I choose to live, not die!! And I know, I know that what's within me is also within you!

--Mayor Pappas, City Hall

The GOP Debate and a Tax History Lesson

When Romney (Net Worth $190-250+ Million) said he wanted to throw something at the TV when John Edwards (NW "only" $29.5 Mil, a couple of million more than George W. Bush) talks of 2 Americas, this pompous ass who was born to unfathomable wealth states that Edwards, who earned every dime, and the rest of the Democrats are trying to divide America when in actuality Edwards' goal is to bridge the divide that already exists. Romney would have you believe there is no divide, and that he is a man of the people, just regular folk who happen to be among the elite 1% of the filthy rich.

And people are buying this?

At least Edwards admits that it's a lot different for people with Tens of millions in the bank than the average citizen who has a net worth less than six figures. Romney wants you to believe that someone with Hundreds of Millions, most of which was handed to him, is no different than you or I in their perspective and priorities.

Hogwash. The game is rigged. Edwards is pointing out the obvious, and Romney is either deluded or trying to delude you. If you buy that BS, shame on you.

Tickle-down economics and the attitude that deficits don't matter are at the core of the doublespeak enshrined in the Republican mantra. These are lies.

When asked about the trouble social security might be in due to the trillion of dollars the government has taken from the fund, the GOP candidates, all of them, cry about the entitlements of social security and medicare and cutting waste here and earmarks there. What they never, ever, ever address (except Ron Paul) is that just the interest on the colossal debt -- the "third" entitlement -- will overtake both of those successful and otherwise fully funded social programs in short order. Yet it's Hillary they attack, who can rightfully be associated with the first surplus since Andrew Jackson, the first chance to reduce the debt's principle. Outrageous!

And their solution? Cut taxes even more, during war, two wars, while the dollar itself is systematically deflated. Wow, just wow.

Since Ronald Reagan took his last nap in the White House Situation Room, we've been fighting over a marginal difference in tax rates of about 12 points, give or take. That's all. Twelve lousy percentage point are the cause of all the demonization and hyperbole that warrant the GOP calling Democrats commies and us self-righteous liberals justify painting conservatives as heartless fascists. (Okay, there are other reasons they are a bunch of hate-mongering thieves, but let's stick to taxes for now.)

Back in Eisenhower's day the top bracket paid 90 frickin per-cent! Now the top pays what? 35%? Less since that rate doesn't apply to the first $175,000 you earn. Hedge fund managers paying only 15% are fighting to keep that loophole alive, and they want even more tax cuts. Puh-Leeze.

Bush the Elder agreed to raise the top bracket a measly 2%, but more than doubled the amount you could make before you paid the highest amount, which sounds fair -- and you would've thought the world ended. Clinton raised the top bracket another 8.6% and we've never heard the end of it. But you could make a quarter mill before that kicked in. Shrubster cut the Clinton hike in half, and the high bracket threshold by a hundred grand, but they want more cuts -- while a war's going on for Pete's sake.

When we're talking about rolling back the Bush tax cuts, we're only talking about charging people making over $250,000/year an extra 4.6% of their additional income ABOVE that quarter of a million greenbacks. These GOPers want you to think that's highway robbery, and the Democrats have you believing that they're Robin Hood. Folks, it's a nickel extra on those extra dollars, that's all.

Yet According to Hillary, and all the Republicans (except Ron Paul, as usual) we're in some kind of existential struggle that rivals the threats we withstood from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. But back then, when WWI started for us, we raised taxes on people making over TWO Million bucks a year from 15% to 67, eventually taxing mere Millionaires 77% by the war's end. Taxes on income above and beyond 100 grand were down to 24% by 1929, and we know how that worked out. FDR got us out of The Depression by taking 63% of income earned above a million dollars and raised it to 80% if you made over 5 million (and back in the Forties, $5 million was real money).

We paid for WWII, funded Social Security's upstart and created the GI Bill, which allowed the Greatest Generation to become the Greatest Parents by lowering the high bracket down to $200,000 and raising the rate to 91% -- which is admittedly ridiculous. The high bracket doubled to 400K by the time Everybody Liked Ike, who left the 91% rate alone. That's high folks. Really high. Especially for a Republican.

Happy Days!

Then came that great Tax and Spender, LBJ presided over drop in the rate to the mid 70%'s which Nixon dropped a couple more points. Between a depleted revenue stream and the cost of the Vietnam war coming due, no wonder Ford and Carter had such trouble with the economy, neither of whom touched the tax rates. That happens when you cut taxes during a war. The next administration inherits a cluster-phuque.

Reagan of course pulled the rug out from under the tax code, dropping the top rate to 50%, then to 38%, and 28% in his last year -- while RAISING the marginal rate by two points on the POOREST tax payers from 11% to 15%. Dickhead! but to the Grover Norquists of the world, he's a god for cutting the top rate by more than half. The mega rich hadn't had it so good since Hoover.

And yes, spending is just as big a problem as wingnut "wealthfare," but the ultimate sacred cow, the one thing they never, ever, ever even contemplate is cutting the military, the single biggest budget item of all, and they won't even consider doing anything but make it even bigger. The waste, fraud, corruption, no-bid, lost and unaccounted Billions the black-hole of the Pentagon has flushed down their ten thousand dollar toilets is beyond redemption.

Why aren't any of the Congressional GOP leaders or the GOP presidential candidates agreeing with Pat Buchanan (of all people) who ask why we still have so many thousands of service men and women in Europe 60 years after WWII and the Cold War a memory of another decade? Europe is bigger and more wealthy than us, and doesn't face a Soviet enemy any more. Why are we borrowing money from the Europeans to pay for their protection? WTF? We're deploying multi-Billion Dollar missile defense systems, deploying them as if they actually work. WTF? We got 30,000 soldiers guarding S.Korea, who certainly are well off enough to hire Blackwater if necessary, from a country half it's size, a fraction of it's worth, that is starving. WTF? Have our guys guard our own border, not theirs.

Ugly GOP Tooberz Debate

I just wanted to make a quick comment in the middle of watching the GOP presidential debates, and couldn't believe how much these guys simply hate each other -- except Tancredo who seems to be enjoying the circular firing squad from his quiet corner stage left.

And then, just when I thought it couldn't get any uglier, "ordinary citizen/U-Tuber" Grover (Drown Government in a Bathtub) Norquist is on the big screen -- six feet tall -- challenging each of these guys to pledge they wouldn't raise taxes. They all lied in response of course. Okay, I'm hooked into live blogging it.

Ugh. At least Anderson Cooper is (ineffectually) moderating instead of Beard Blitzer. But to be fair, there's no controlling Mitt and Rudy who must have turned off twice as many people as they attracted, by far.

Giuliani and Mitt shouted at each other and were both boo'd. Mitt yelled at Huckabee (you don't mess with a preacher dude, what's wrong with you), and were both boo'd -- what's up with that? McCain crossed the Godwin Line by implying Ron Paul was a Hitler enabler, and was boo'd -- and should have had rotten tomatoes thrown at him. Mitt got slapped by McCain, and was cheered. Fred Thompson looked like he needed a nap and sounded like he missed his meds.

Oh, and Duncan Hunter was there. I guess he singlehandedly built a 70 mile double fence (with a road through it) to keep the brown people out of San Diego, or something, and eliminated all crime and drugs and illegal lettuce pickers in Southern California -- from his apartment in the D.C. Suburbs. Take THAT Chuck Norris!

Speaking of Chuck Norris' candidate, Mike Huckabee. If he didn't win over the Christo-con faction of the GOP tonight, he never will. He absolutely NAILED a question on whether he believes the literal word of the Bible as true. Outstanding answer, best I've ever seen a candidate of any stripe handle that type of question.

Personally I don't care what they think of the bible as long as they understand some of it is interpretive rather than literal. But when Huck said he didn't understand all of it, and he isn't supposed to, then said the simple things (like the golden rule) are what we have to concentrate before we get into a debate over the hard stuff -- my jaw dropped. He just articulated the perfect response to that dumb question and every politician from any party ought to comit that answer to memory.

It was nearly impossible not to wonder just what any of these demagogues would do if Hillary isn't the nominee. She is the boogeyman of them all, especially Romney, Freddy and Rudy. My head nearly exploded when Romney answered a question about the federal debt and social security, saying what we needed is not to follow Hillary off a cliff to the left, but follow the "proper" course of Reagan.

Remember Reagan? You know, the guy who started the idea that "deficits don't matter" followed by Bush/Bush/Cheney, instead of Clintonomics which gave us the first surplus since Andrew Jackson. Reagan, the guy who made stealing from social security to pay for deficit spending a multi-trillion dollar free-for-all. Unbelievable.

What planet are these guys really from? Oh yeah, no wonder they want to go to Mars. Geez.

Debating the Value of These Debates

I caught only bits and pieces of the debate live as it unfolded, pretty much missing the last half entirely. I got a chance to read some of the 'sphere's reaction to what happened before I sat down to watch the repeat.

I got the impression that all the fireworks came out in the first half anyway -- and I have a theory as to why.

Two Words: Wolf Blitzer.

No, he's no Tim Russert (thank god) but if you look at the questions he went to at the top of the debate, as opposed to the audience generated questions (that I'm still waiting for as of this writing), Blitzer was setting up the fight.

In essence, he says, "Hey Hillary, they've been coming at you for a week or two -- take your best shot girfriend." Then Wolf looks to Obama, "Barack, dude. Are you gonna take that crap from a girl?" "Senator Edwards, can you summarize why Hillary sucks in less that 90 seconds? . . . Go!"

I don't know how to fix these things, honestly. I'm really committed to watching, learning, interpreting and sharing my thoughts on these events. I'm convinced that the Democratic Primary process will select the next president -- even if Lou Dobbs decides to run. (Cuz there just aren't enough conservative nutjobs out there running as it is.)

But honestly, I'm zoning out. I have no idea why Joe Biden isn't immensely more popular. I have no idea why Chris Dodd is even in the race, what he brings to the table. I had no idea Campbell Brown moved to CNN. I have no idea why Richardson is so damn honest -- cuz if he'd learn to say what everyone wants to hear instead of the truth all the time, he might have a chance. I have no idea why the question America wants to ask Dennis Kucinich was blown off -- "What did you really see in the Arizona sky, and how much peyote had you eaten that day?"

Are the debates that important, or who even wins the post debate spin war and week long pundit analysis afterwards? I think a promising career in politics can end in one of these things, but does winning really matter? I have my doubts. You can "lose," trip up and be buried, but I don't know if you gain ground by winning as much as capitalize on someone else faltering.

Oh, and Obama, dude. Don't do any more of these things. You suck at it almost as much as Richardson.

UPDATE: Seems like I missed the good part of the debate, the part that mattered -- where the candidates answer real questions, fully, from real people. Young Yglesias nails it. The Versailles Press simply must be neutered.

UPDATE TWO: Yes, really. Lou Dobbs. And . . . Yes, I missed that one. The Ghost of Ross Perot and his charts really didn't need to be resurrected.

What Do You Know?

You now know, as I have been informed, informed for reasons I simply do not understand, that Paris Hilton was strip-searched. Not only was this one of the important data points we learned when she was on Larry King for the full hour, but that fact was snipped and broadcast around most other media outlets.

You also know, for even less cogent reasons, that Ann Coulter's latest polemic is out in paperback because she was booked on countless "news" programs to promote it and then got in a hissy fit when confronted by one of her victims, Elizabeth Edwards, on MSNBC's Hardball. That altercation was in turn an irresistible "news" item spread far and wide. If you missed it, you've been purposely avoiding the media in any form. Thank goodness Ann was able to spare a whole hour out of her busy schedule to sit on a low rated news show and bless us with her grace and intellect -- so she could sell more books.

You probably did NOT know there was a Presidential Forum/Debate last night shown live on PBS. It's even less likely that you watched it -- statistically that is. Don't expect there to be much mention of this on the TV or Radio. The debate was professional, cordial and informative even if the 90 minute event still seemed rushed with so many candidates with so much to say. But since Dennis Kucinich didn't fling poo at Bill Richardson, it will go largely unreported, especially in the broadcast sphere. (Okay, CBS did mention it, taking their copy from the Political Animal blog, and CNN had some post debate interviews.)

Indeed, you have to look real hard on the nations front pages to find even a one inch blurb about the event, and event designed to help us pick the next leader of the free world -- a person with more power than any seven Caesars combined.

The Seattle Times managed to fit in such a blurb pointing to a story on page A-6. The Washington Post devoted half the side panel to the debate with three full paragraphs and an above-the-fold headline, plus a roundup on their blog -- but when you think about it, for them it was a local story. That's pretty much it for front page coverage and only scant mention can be found between the covers of the nation's newpapers.

The New York Times deemed the debate unworthy of mention on their front page, but did put it prominently on their blog -- knowing us real junkies want the Gray Lady's take on the event. Interestingly enough, the story by the NYTimes' Adam Nagourney is featured more prominently in the San Fransisco Chronicle than the paper that pays him -- but both papers buried the article. Probably for the best since, as Bob Somerby reminds yesterday while critiquing another recent Ad Nags missive: "The degree of incompetence Nagourney displayed almost defies comprehension."

So I'm curious, as the internet savvy, political junkie that your are (you must be if you're reading this blog since it's only three pages from the last page of the internet itself), did you know about the debate before it occurred?

Did you watch it? Did you know about it before you read this post?

Did you know that Paris Hilton got new hair extensions?

An Edwards Fan's Take On The Debate

The debate was one of the best I've seen, primarily because it was a bit more freeform than previous "joint appearances" we are used to. This time, the candidates were allowed to mix it up more.

But it wasn't exactly equal time. Here's the "Talk Clock" via Booman showing Obama spoke for 16 minutes, Hillary got 14:26, Edwards 11:42, Richardson 10:48, Kucinich 9:02, Dodd 8:28, Biden 7:58, Gravel 5:37.

Informal Question Count: Obama - 18, Clinton - 16, Edwards - 13, Biden - 11, Kucinich/Dodd/Richardson - 10, Gravel - 9.

Obama certainly was given an opportunity to shine -- and given his cult-like following more interested in his promise than his policies, he blew the opportunity to add substance to his style.

There was some "mixing it up" off stage too, where Media Matter's Eric Alterman got arrested for trying to crash a WMUR-TV reception and got belligerent.

Big Tent Democrat (Armando):

First, from my point of view, it was a good night for putting pressure on the Congress to end the war, through the use of the Not Spending power. It was the early focus of the debate and Edwards pounded on Clinton and Obama on showing leadership in Congress on ending the war through use of the Not Spending power. It was the highlight of the debate.

CNN: Larry King found Elizabeth Edwards first and did a stand-up interview with her that was priceless. He said, "Senator Edwards leading the force in carrying on a very, very, strong presentation". CNN's panel was likewise impressed, even GOP strategist, J.C. Watts for being the only one talking about poverty. Donna Brazille said, "But Senator Edwards, I also believe, came out looking very smart, he was bold, he talked about his distinctions, the differences, with the other candidates." Candy Crowley's piece lead with Edwards' indictment of Obama and Clinton and seemed likewise impressed.

MSNBC's Chuck Todd's take:

John Edwards seemed very engaged and clearly carved out opportunities to engage Clinton and Obama. The press coverage will reflect this which the Edwards campaign will see as a victory. Bottom line, it was Edwards best debate performance to date (and I'm counting the one from this year and the ones from 2003-4).

So far, Edwards was winning the Daily KOS post debate poll and still ahead at MyDD's poll. It's not to late to VOTE, so do so if you haven't.

HuffPost's Arriana believed Edwards was most well briefed and impressed with Edwards’ admissions of past mistakes and overall performance and think it's about time Hillary admitted she screwed the pooch on the war vote and continued funding of Iraq until lately when Edwards pushed her and Obama to meekly vote against the supplemental after everyone else voted -- the performance Edwards blasted them on for not showing any leadership.

Unlike Hillary, who blames bad intel and Bush's mismanagement for what the war has become -- in other words, it's not her fault -- Edwards got applause from the audience for saying simply, he was wrong.

CNN: Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards got applause from the audience after saying he regretted voting for the Iraq war. 'I think I had the information I needed,' Edwards said. 'I don’t think that was the question. I think one difference we do have is I think I was wrong. I should never have voted for this war.'"

The implication is clear, Hillary doesn't think she was wrong, or responsible. If she were simply to say, "I F#$%ed Up, sorry." I might give her a chance.

Evidently she's also not responsible for the increase in terrorism world-wide since she defended the GOP metaphorical frame called the War on Terror. She said it's working to make us safer, but not safe enough. Edwards had rejected that frame as the sham it is -- a "bumper sticker".

Bite me Hillary. How much more of the Constitution shall we shred before you feel safe?

Obama got his licks in too, saying Edwards was "4 1/2 years too late" on his anti-war stance. Fine Barack, but what have you done for us lately? His policy stances are simply timid, votes too calculated, and as John said, "there is a difference between leadership and legislating." Edwards slammed these "leaders" (Clinton and Obama) and Gravel and Kucinich locked the door.

There's blood on the hands of all three of them, four if you count Biden. Edward for sponsoring the AUMF, Hillary for voting for it and defending that vote to this day and supporting every funding measure for the war except the last one. And Obama too has voted for all the funding bills he's seen until Edwards put enough pressure on him and the rest of Congress to vote against the last supplemental funding. Biden has no anti-war cred whatsoever, although he has articulated the best strategy for prosecuting the war throughout -- partition -- other than just leaving.

Only two of tonight's candidates not only voted against continuing the funding -- Kucinich and Dodd (Obama and Clinton come late to this position), but did so proudly. Only one of the four who voted for the AUMF has been a vocal leader in his agreement with Dennis and Dodd that we should not fund the escalation -- Edwards. Biden voted for the funding and Obama and Hillary might as well have phoned their votes in. Only one of the four says his vote for the AUMF was wrong and is doing something to atone for it -- again, Edwards.

STFU Barack. You say everybody on the panel supports the troops. Support them by getting them home, geez. You should be doing everything in your power to pressure your collegues and the President to end this war.

Richardson did nothing to move himself beyond the "second tier." Did you know he's a governor? I really like that guy, and his resume. But he doesn't stand any more of a chance than any of the other also-rans to compete on the same field with Edwards, Obama and Clinton. It's a shame. He's got to get mean to break through, and that's not his style.

Biden killed his chances tonight, and will now be considered just plain goofy for his red-faced rants. America doesn't like to be screamed at. Ask Howard Dean about that.

Senator Chris Dodd was ignored, and until his cheap six dollar haircut grows out, I'm ignoring him too and have already typed his name more than the journalistic style guide permits. He (and his lovely white hair) does not exist -- there is no Dodd. Except of course in New Hampshire where he got a lot of friends.

---

UPDATE: Corrections made to reflect Obama and Clinton's votes against the Supplemental Funding Bill and clear up my sleepy writing from late last night. Thanks Ara.

Observation: The back and forth between Obama and Edward on their Health Care Plans was interesting mainly for the way it put Hillary in the role of spectator at a tennis match. Not what I expected a year ago. She should own the health care debate, and seems like she wants to run from it.

Post Debate Updates

Over at Ohio for John Edwards, the updates are coming in fast and furious.

Here's a sample:

UPDATE 1:
Joe Klein from Time's Swampland is impressed with the Edwards campaign.

No Baloney Candidate

"Edwards is demonstrating two of the qualities I most value in a politician: self-deprecating humor and real courage."

Chris Cillizza's The Fix Blog at Washington Post

Edwards Draws Sharpest Contrasts

Edwards continues to come the closest to drawing outright contrasts with his rivals.

Asked about his healthcare plan, Edwards said he was "proud of the fact that I have a very specific universal healthcare plan that is different than some of the others on the stage."

He added: "Rhetoric is not enough. High falutin' language is not enough."

---

UPDATE 2:

Vote for Edwards here, and don't forget to recommend the diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/26/185638/299

MyDD also has a post debate thread
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/26/203123/174

Tell everyone why you thought Edwards won.

---

UPDATE 3:
VOTE

---

UPDATE 4:
RAW STORY frames the debate as Edwards vs. Clinton, and some other folks who happened to be there.

---

UPDATE 5:
VOTE SOME MORE

Win The Debate Spin!

The first Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate is just hours away.

The debate will take place at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, South Carolina, and will air live on MSNBC from 7:00 to 8:30 pm (ET) and stream live on MSNBC.com.

We’ve got the man with the plan and that’s what we are going to see tonight!

There are going to be live bloggers and open threads throughout Blogtopia and I hope you'll be there right in the trenches of the spin wars along with me.

I'll be updating at Ohio For Edwards throughout the night with links to bloggers streaming, live blogging, debating and spinning throughout the evening.

There will also certainly be strawpolls asking who won, and I'll be pointing you to those as well.

In the mean time, Go Rate the Candidates Here!