ZZzzzzz

And he won last night's debate hands down too.

will, did you even watch the debate? obama was a zombie, and only got in one real zinger against HRC. i really want to be for obama, but his debate performances continue to dissapoint. he's articulate, but he comes across like he's not interested in engaging with his opponents, like he's too good for all this "politics stuff". he needs to show that he has some fight in him and really take on HRC during these debates. sure the unity and consensus talk is nice, but much better suited to a general election campaign. right now he needs to give democratic primary and caucus voters reasons to vote for him and against HRC. the more he pulls his punches, the more he cedes frontrunner status and an aura of inevitability to her. not a smart strategy for a candidate who's in a three-way tie in iowa, trails badly in new hampshire, and trails in national polling.

Good story - just as it was when I read it days ago in Seattle Weekly.

@2

Please tell me that's sarcasm. It's gotta be.

I think all the moisture has got mold growing in Seattleites' brains if Obama's the favored candidate.

Then again, if he's good enough for Oprah, I can see why the passive-aggressive, touchy-feely masses would fall for him.

Will, I hope you are joking. His performance last night was one of the worst. He is still saying the same old things, mind you they sound nice in a speech, but again no substance and no proven leadership behind them.

He will not engage the frontrunner (Clinton) and if he won't do this in the primary then he is going to have a difficult time convincing voters that he can beat the Republicans in the general.

I see this Dean thing with Obama happening all over again. It is the anti-war crowd that likes Obama because he is the only front-runner that didn't vote for the resolution to force Sadam to comply with the U.N. resolutions. It is easy for him to keep saying that because he was not in the Senate at that time, he did not have the bogus intelligence that everyone believed true at that time, and was not forced to take the vote like the others.

I would also remind all the anti-war backers of Obama that his position on getting out is exactly like Hillary's. Don't get me wrong, I believe this is the right way to do it without an all out human catastrophe occuring, but if you really want the war stopped immediately (and somewhat recklessly) then you should be voting for Richardson or Kucinich.

Obama is just not ready for the Presidential stage, which is a shame because I really like him.

The more I see the candidates, the better Chris Dodd looks.

But I'm still holding out hope that Big Al will hop into the race.

Dodd's significant experience in the Senate qualifies him for the Presidency -- he's got political chops, the ability to win, and clout. But he just feels too Senatorial, which is quite different from being Presidential. It's like expecting a good teacher to be an inspirational preacher.

And, for goodness's sake, Dodd needs to learn how to be passionate without sounding angry. He toned things down as the debate progressed, but he was almost Gravel-ish during the first half.

It's a shame that qualified, intelligent politicians like Dodd and Biden haven't a chance in hell to get past IA and NH.

Kucinich is as colorless in complexion as Richardson is in personality. Eat a fucking hamburger, you veggie-loving halfling.

Obama does poorly in debates, and it's because at heart he's a conciliator, not a fighter. That works fine if your goal is to competently manage the status quo, but after eight years of Bush we need leadership willing to start the right kind of fights and stick with them to the end. Things need to change, not just be managed better.

Of the top candidates, Edwards is the only one that seems willing to take on entrenched interests. Dodd's too much a creature of the Senate Banking Committee. He's good on the war but is otherwise a less charismatic Hillary Clinton. The same goes for Richardson and Biden to a large degree, though they tend to be bigger egomaniacal buffoons than Dodd. Of the two principled, no-BS candidates, Kucinich is the only one who sounds sane, but he can't sell himself to the Washington establishment of middle America. So Edwards it is.

Obama's support in Washington state means nothing, as our caucus/primary combination will happen too late to be decisive. The best we can do is give money.

@9

I'm an Edwards fan as well, but I fear he's really struggling for mindshare since the mainstream media is obsessed with the Obama vs. Hillary theme. And I don't think he will find it easy to convince detractors that he's not a smarmy and vain, ambulance-chasing ex-fratboy.

It's a shame too, because he does have such promise. He's got a fantastic message; his "Two Americas" theme really resonated with voters. He should have skipped the 2004 race and built his reputation and skills in the Senate because as things stand now, he's running with less than one elected term of experience.

I don't think a Clinton/Edwards ticket is likely at all, but I would like to see him back in public life.

Yeah, I watched it a couple of times, cause they rebroadcast it. And since that meant it was like late, I'm really sleepy now.

Now go sod off and just admit that Obama won it.

Hills looked Presidential last night. And I *loved* the fact that she wouldn't get pinned down on the question of Iran or Social Security- she is already fighting the general election, and doesn't want to hand the Rs any free sound bites.

So what did that leave? Who advanced their status as the credible "Option B"? Edwards and Biden. Who didn't? Obama, Richardson (who's done), Dodd, Grivel, and Kucinich.

@ 11, no i won't, because he didn't. and, by the way, your unanalytical gorebama party line schtick is predictible and BORING.

"go sod off" really doesn't prove your guy won, it's just a sign that you don't have the mental capacity to critically respond to my points raised above. so, how is obama going to distinguish himself and break out of the pack and win the nomination? if he continues with his lackluster debate performances, he won't have to worry about it much past january 14, 2008.

I don't think it would be a bad thing for HRC to wipe America's butt in '09 after Bush shat everywhere. Then, have Obama enter a nice, clean restroom after Hill's done proving her manhood. Obama will have more experience under his belt, and won't be blamed for unforeseeable problems that will undoubtedly rise from Bush's mess that only someone w/ balls (like HRC) can address.

Mongo make sense.

Most of the analysis pieces outside the Stranger said Hills came off more brittle than usual. Mind you, she'd make a better Pres than any of the anti-evolution GOPers.

@ 16, so what you're saying is you don't really give an answer other than "stfu, stfu, obama won, obama won", so you'll just regurgitate what others have said, and deflect the argument. good strategy. hmm, where have i seen this used before?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/26/380432.aspx

Well, @17, technically Gore won, but Obama did the best of those present ... (grin)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/63251/