Is the system of American electoral primaries really in the national interest? According to some on the other side of the Atlantic, the answer is an emphatic no. Philippe Marliere writes for France’s Rue 89, that not only are people around the world ‘exasperated,’ and demanding to know, ‘why the BBC is paying such costly attention to non-decisive votes more than ten months before the presidential election,’ he continues that, ‘With few exceptions, the primaries create a democratic parody, from which the main socio-political stereotypes and prejudices emerge reinforced. … One could laugh at such practices if they weren’t about to appear in Europe.’

By Philippe Marlière, Translated By Kate Davis February 19, 2008 France - Rue89 - Original Article (French)

Never have the American primary elections generated such a strong and sustained interest in the rest of the world. Media coverage of the first vote held in the state of Iowa sparked a media frenzy that was out of all proportion to the importance of the event. The extraordinary candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Democratic side, and of John McCain on the Republican side, only partially explain this craze.

THE PUBLIC FATIGUE Read the rest of this entry »

From one of my favorite Ohio bloggers, Clark Street Blog:

Terse summarizations of the candidates/campaigns so far:

DEMOCRATS

OBAMA: Hope with me, dream with me, believe in me, vote for me.

CLINTON: Is the applause meter on?

EDWARDS: I am in this until the end. The END! Okay, never mind.

DODD: I would like to share some thoughtful remarks on some important matters of policy. Hey, is this thing on?

RICHARDSON: You want experience? How about Congress, Cabinet, Diplomat, and Governor? (* crickets *)

KUCINICH: We shall overcome, and we shall do it with drum circles.

BIDEN: Why do I keep tasting bits of shoe leather in my mouth?

GRAVEL: I don’t care who, and I don’t care why, but SOMEONE IS GETTIN’ A FIST SANDWICH.

REPUBLICANS

ROMNEY: Thanks to the internet, my positions are now available in real time.

McCAIN: America, thy name is victory.

HUCKABEE: America, thy name is victory for Jesus.

GIULIANI: I love Bush. I love Cheney. The last 7 years have been great. I say MORE COWBELL!

PAUL: Half of what I say makes total sense. Do you really care about the rest?

THOMPSON: Look, I really need this nap. I was at a costume party at my wife’s sorority until pretty late. I dressed up as Ronald Reagan.

Please, if you like it, give the proper attribution. Thanks.

Once again, former President Bill Clinton seems poised to be pitchforked into the headlines right on the eve of a crucial primary vote amid a report that he’s going to “repent” by going to some black churches. Almost on the EVE of the Super Tuesday primaries, Clinton will garner attention that could be focused on his wife Hillary Clinton:

[UPDATE: The Clinton campaign has now denied that he will do a mea culpa. But is the door still ajar for a news-making apology? Read OUR LATEST POST HERE.]

This will get LOTS of media attention tomorrow. And it will be in the news cycle Monday.

So the stage is being set to give Bill Clinton a pass, because he is Bill Clinton. But lest we re-write recent history, Mr. Clinton had been accused of raising the race issue SEVERAL times, including blatantly right after Senator Barack Obama won South Carolina.

Because he is Bill Clinton (who just coincidentally will make the apology right before Super Tuesday) is he allowed to just apologize and pretend it never happened or that it some how just came out of his mouth like the aftermath of food poisoning? More from the Washington Post:

Watson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), tells us she’ll usher the former president to more than half a dozen churches in her district where she says he needs to “renew his relationship” with congregants who were turned off by his racially tinged comments in the days leading up to and following the South Carolina primary. (Such as when Clinton compared Sen. Barack Obama’s landslide victory to Jesse Jackson’s Read the rest of this entry »

Ohio held a straw poll last night. You can read about it in great detail at this post on Daily Kos by Anastasia Pantsios, an excellent, long-time Cleveland-area journalist. Here she notes how now-departed Democratic primary challenger and Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich - who is fighting for his seat in the 10th district - feels about the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates:

Finally, the organizers gathered all the candidates on stage. They let Dennis, Rosemary [Palmer, one of Kucinich’s congressional challengers in the primary] and Barbara [Ferris, another challenger] each have a minute to speak. Dennis said forcefully, “I’ve had the opportunity to campaign with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and they are both worthy candidates and both are ready to serve their country as president.” Good on you, Dennis!

I can’t say just how many votes that’s worth to either Obama or Clinton, but I would be pretty certain that it won’t affect any Republicans - though maybe a few independents. And note, he didn’t mention Ralph Nader.

One of Dennis Kucinich’s most often-cited assets during his run for the Democratic nomination to be president was his wife, Elizabeth. Now, while he works to retain his seat in Ohio’s 10th congressional district (he’ll be going for his seventh term), she may be occupied with the new windmill he’s erecting, IntegrityNow.org.

From the Plain Dealer Openers blog:

The 61-year-old congressman announced the creation of a national organization, Integrity Now, which will continue to push his presidential campaign agenda of ending the war in Iraq.

Kucinich said all the energy that had gone into his presidential campaign could now be “transitioned” to the new group. He gave few details of the organization but said his wife, Elizabeth, would play a major role, and he urged people to visit integritynow.org.

The only sign of life at the site is a sign-up form.

In the meantime, Kucinich continues to try to garner support to commence an investigation (via articles of impeachment) of President George Bush for his role in sending the U.S. down the road to war in Iraq.

As an Ohioan who lives one district away from Dennis and who has been following at least three of his four Democratic primary opponents for months, I’d encourage him to pay even more attention to his home turf, because the opponents are amping up.

NB: Kucinich says that he won’t endorse any Democrat in the primary. However, he told his supporters to vote for Barack Obama in the Iowa caucuses.

Of the presidential race. From the Plain Dealer’s blog, Openers:

Cleveland Congressman Dennis Kucinich is dropping out of the Democratic race for president.

Kucinich will make the announcement Friday at a news conference in Cleveland. In an exclusive interview with Plain Dealer editors and reporters, Kucinich said he will explain his “transitioning” tomorrow.

“I want to continue to serve in Congress,” he said.

Kucinich said he will not endorse another Democrat in the primary.

Kucinich is seeking a seventh term in Congress, but his long-shot bid for the White House has drawn four Democratic opponents.

Big news here in Northeast Ohio, if not for the rest of the country. People love him or hate him. I’ll withhold comment. I’m not in his district. But the pressure’s been amped up considerably over the last few days. This dropping out comes as no surprise. And for Kucinich constituents in Ohio, they should be breathing a sigh of relief. For his opponents, they will be holding their breath.

Oh - I forgot to write when I first composed this post: Obama, Clinton and Edwards can also breathe a sigh of relief.;)

Kucinich will be most remembered for his Department of Peace concept, his aggressive re-statement of his resistance to the war in Iraq and his lovely wife, Elizabeth (I know, that’s so catty of me - but it’s true, now, isn’t it?).

This Guest Voice column is by Patrick , an attorney who is a registered Republican but concerned over the influence of the hard right on his party and the influence of the hard left on the Democratic party. He is assistant editor of the centrist blog Central Sanity. This is the SECDON of two parts. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Moderate Voice or its writers. Part One is HERE.

WHAT IS A MODERATE TO DO: PART TWO

By Patrick Edaburn

In my last post I discussed my views of the Republican candidates for President, in this one I will take a look at the Democrats.

As a moderate I have given this considerable thought and have come to some rather depressing conclusions regarding the options available to those of us in the political center.

(I’d like to begin this post by apologizing for the delay in the posting of the second part of this essay. I had hoped to have it up last week but my car decided to die and accordingly I have been spending my time dealing with those issues.)

Just to review what I wrote in the Part One, whenever I am trying to decide who to vote for in a primary, particularly in a Presidential contest, I consider several factors. The most important of course is ideology, which candidate or candidates best match a centrist viewpoint.

Also important is the character of the candidates. Do they seem reasonably honest and trustworthy? I realize that some people don’t put this as a key factor but if you are basing your vote on what the candidates views are you need to know if they can be trusted to stick with what they say.

A final factor to take into account is viability. While it is most important to look at the views of each candidate, it does little good to back a contender who has no chance of winning. It might feel good for a while but often it can lead to a reasonably good candidate who might be your second choice losing to a really bad one.

So now on to the Democrats

DEMOCRATS

One of the nice things about the delay in my posting is that it has allowed some of the weaker candidates to withdraw. I was actually a bit disappointed to see Bill Richardson drop out as he seemed to offer some pretty compelling factors in terms of experience and moderate viewpoints.

But I can only deal with those contenders still in the race (though expect Bill to be near the top of the VP list for whoever wins the top nod).

I assume it goes without saying that both Kucinich and Gravel are not viable so I won’t waste your time discussing why. If you do think they are viable candidates please feel free to post your thoughts.

Senator Edwards is a former VP nominee with a lot of money and an appealing public image, which in theory should make him a major contender for the nomination. But he is caught between the ‘first woman’ and ‘first minority’ buzz saw and I don’t think he will be able to make it out.

It is possible that either Clinton or Obama will make a mistake and be forced out, and in that case Edwards could emerge as the alternative. But for now I think it is simply a matter of time before he gets out.

Even with Edwards in the race, he’s not really good for the moderate voter. His campaign is divisive, very much set on setting one side against the other. He is very liberal, and I am not sure there is very much between those ears.

So this leaves us with (in alphabetic order): Clinton and Obama

Hilary Clinton

Starting from the beginning HRC was seen as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. That aura has faded somewhat over the past few months but with her ‘comeback’ in New Hampshire she remains a top candidate

While I have admittedly had problems with the Senator from New York, she has compiled some moderate points during her tenure in the Senate. She has avoided taking too hard a line on social issues and has proposed some strong positions on national security issues.

Her views on Iraq seem balanced, supporting a change but not doing so without taking into account the realities of the situation.

This is not to say she is a centrist. If you look at the ratings from the various interest groups her record has been in the liberal sphere, but not too far outside of the political mainstream.

According to the Almanac of American Politics, her votes from 2003 through 2006 were as follows: Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative; Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative; Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative. Average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.

I don’t agree with her on everything but she is not the wild eyed radical some would want you to think

She also seems to be reasonably qualified for the job. While I wouldn’t say that simply being First Lady gave her the job, she has also spent 8 years as a Senator and had a long career in the public and private sector before that.

One issue I do have with Senator Clinton is the same I had with President Clinton, the issue of honesty and trust. While I do not expect my politicians to be as pure as the driven snow, I do like them to be quasi honest.

In Senator Clinton’s case, the fact that she has tried to act the moderate after a lifetime of fairly liberal politics makes me think twice. On the other hand, this duplicity could work to the moderate advantage. She is going to want to get re-elected so she is likely to tack to the center during her first term.

Her viability is an issue to consider as she has strong critics on both the right and the left, which could cause a division in party ranks. Then again, I suspect that whoever the Democrats nominate will win, so that may be a moot point.

On a scale of 1 to 10, she rates on fairly well on ideology but less so on integrity and viability issues. Overall, I would give her a 5-6, making her one of the better options among the Democrats.

Barack Obama

Certainly Obama is a political wonder. He has emerged from being an obscure state legislator to a major Presidential contender in the space of a few years. His campaign is probably the most positive and uplifting since Reagan or Clinton.

I suspect that he is also fairly sincere about his views. He hasn’t been that specific of course, but I don’t think he is the type to say one thing when he means another. His background is not a concern to me (I don’t think he is some deep cover terrorist sneaking in the back door).

But there are some serious flaws from a moderate point of view.

One of the biggest is ideology. As I’ve said, I don’t think he is one to lie about his positions, but at the same time he hasn’t been very specific about his views. His campaign has been largely sound bites about uniting and bringing people together. While this is nice, we need to look deeper.

On domestic policy he comes down as hard liberal, advocating things like nationalized health care, major social programs, expansion of federal role in education and so on.

Obviously most of these issues do require solutions, but I am not sure that I support the idea of everything being resolved by the government. As a moderate I look to a combination of government and the private sector in solving problems.

On national security I am also concerned by Senator Obama. His opposition to the war in Iraq and support of a withdrawal is a good idea, but he simply wants to pull out right away without any consideration of the long term impact.

His suggestion that he would talk to rogue nations like Iran and North Korea with no expectation that they will adopt more reasonable views on things is not encouraging.

Indeed I wonder if he is a bit naïve on things. He hasn’t quite come out and said that if we just talk nice to people they will leave us alone, but I do start to wonder.

Overall I would give Obama high marks for inspiration but fairly low ones after looking a little deeper. Perhaps a 3 or 4 overall, but perhaps with potential for the future.

Looking at both parts 1 and two, we find we have 3 candidates (Clinton, Giuliani and Romney) who are pretty good on the issues but have trust and viability issues. A fourth candidate is pretty good on trust and some issues but has a serious flaw on Iraq (McCain).

Finally we have a fifth who is inspiring on the stump and says some good things but does not have the experience or moderate views we need (Obama).

The rest of the candidates are too far to the left or to the right to even be serious contenders.

As a moderate I find it hard to get excited about any of these candidates and a few of them really scare me.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our earlier headline had wrongly said this was Part I and the intro was from the first part. We have made the corrections. The Moderate Voice regrets the error.

DEBATE PREVIEW:

Dennis Kucinich got ruled out at the last minute by the courts.

MSNBC

MSNBC First Read:

The two-hour debate from here in Las Vegas begins at 9:00 pm ET on MSNBC, and it’s moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams, who will be joined by NBC’s Tim Russert; NBC’s Natalie Morales also will be asking questions. The debate will feature a segment we haven’t seen in a while: candidate-to-candidate questions, which could end up being quite interesting. Definitely participating are Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

WATCH THE DEBATE ON MSNBC OR AT MSNBC.COM

DEBATE LIVE-BLOGGING:

MSNBC First Read:

Washington Post’s THE FACT CHECKER

THE CAUCUS BLOG (New York Times)

CNN’s Nevada Political Ticker

ABC Political Radar

WP’s THE TRAIL

Jeralyn at TalkLeft

Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog

POST-DEBATE ANALYSIS:

I’ll leave this part to Joe Gandelman!

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich has busy lawyers these days: it was just announced that he’s suing NBC over being excluded from tomorrow’s debate of the top-three Democratic Presidential nomination race candidates. Last week he demanded a recount of the New Hampshire primary vote.

UPDATE: The judge has backed Kucinich. Read ED MORRISSEY.

(Here’s the rest of our earlier post)

With two legal actions in a row, he’s turning into the ambulance chaser candidate:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has just sued NBC-TV in Las Vegas over his exclusion from the MSNBC debate among top Democratic candidates in Nevada tomorrow.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Kucinich filed his lawsuit moments ago seeking a temporary restraining order allowing him to participate in the nationally-televised debate among Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

As reported here over the weekend, Kucinich was originally informed that he was invited. But that invitation was later rescinded, prompting an outraged press release about giant corporate powers controlling voters’ access to all candidates.

Kucinich’s lawsuit claims, “Kucinich is a credible and serious candidate in Nevada, where he is actively and vigorously campaigning and has statewide headquarters in Las Vegas.” The suit could threaten tomorrow evening’s debate.

It comes just days before the hotly-contested Nevada caucuses that has drawn all the Democratic candidates, seeking votes and endorsements. A District Court hearing was scheduled for this afternoon.

The L.A. Times blog had reported this:

Read the rest of this entry »

File this in your He’s Got To Be Kidding file:

Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party’s contest were counted. The Ohio congressman cited “serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors” about the integrity of Tuesday results.

Did I miss something?

Where were the reports from Newsweek, the AP, the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and MSNBC about these “serious and credible” allegations that New Hampshire’s votes were not fairly or correctly counted? MORE:

Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had “every confidence” the results are accurate.

In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that “100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted.”

Oh.

Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton’s triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.

So Kucinich’s main source of information about how the entire news media, the state of New Hampshire, all the politicians (why haven’t THE OTHER CANDIDATES demanded a recount?) have been so blind comes from blogs? That’s where the main controversy has raged.

Or could his information have come from that flying saucer?

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS MAJOR SCANDAL SEE:
Business Wire, Michelle Malkin

The Presidential candidates are beginning to look like relatives who came for the holidays and stayed too long.

At first it was just going to be the kids–Hillary, Barack, Rudy with his newest wife, and John, if he wasn’t on one of his trips to Iraq. But then all kinds of kin you invite but don’t expect to come started showing up.

Nephew Mitt drove up with a dog on the car roof, told all kinds of stories about where he’d been and got into a beef with Rudy about the people who were doing the yard work.

Great-uncle Fred arrived late and went up to the guest room for a long nap.

Cousin Mike came in from the cold and started eating everybody’s lunch.

After Barack got reclusive Aunt Oprah to show up for appetizers, Hillary called Chelsea and her mother, and the old homestead started filling up like the Marx brothers’ stateroom.

Somewhere in the attic, Ron Paul is checking his e-mail on a laptop, Dennis is in the back yard checking for UFOS and who knows what all those distant relatives are yakking about in the basement?

It’s great to have a big family, but how long are they all going to hang around?

Cross-posted from my blog.

MSNBC First Read:

There is one additional Republican presidential candidate who will be on the stage here at the GOP Des Moines Register/Iowa Public Television debate this afternoon: Alan Keyes.

This will be the first major debate this cycle featuring the former presidential candidate and ambassador, who most recently faced off against Barack Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race (even though he actually hails from Maryland). Keyes did participate in the Tavis Smiley-moderated GOP debate in September, which the top Republican candidates skipped.

Why is Keyes debating, while Kucinich and Gravel are not at tomorrow’s Democratic debate? According to Iowa Public Television spokeswoman Jennifer Glover Konfrst, Keyes met the criteria to participate; Kucinich and Gravel did not.

The criteria include: 1) an FEC statement of candidacy; 2) having an Iowa campaign staffer and Iowa campaign office as of October 1; and 3) registering at least at 1% in the October Des Moines Register poll.

“It’s always easier the second time around,” goes the lyrics of the old song. But while that may be true in love and romance, it is certainly not the case in presidential politics.

And that is not good news for Republican John McCain and Democrat John Edwards (or for that matter, Democrats Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich) who are making second tries for the White House in 2008 after failing to win their party’s nomination on their first attempts.

I actually heard most of this one while I was out running errands. As a Democrat who is dubious of the new NIE, I am not happy with our candidates’ insistence that the military option be “off the table” with Iran. I hope I don’t have to cast my first vote for a Republican presidential candidate in November of 2008.

You can download and listen to the 2-hour debate from NPR: Iran Sparks Fireworks at Democratic Debate. You can also listen to several brief audio “highlights.”

Debate Transcript

NPR Debate Fact Check

TNR’s The Stump: A Lousy Format for Hillary at the NPR Debate

Chris Cillizza of The Fix gives us NPR’s Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers

CNN Political Ticker

NY Times: For Democrats, a Strained Debate on Immigration

The Caucus Blog of the NY Times Live-Blogged It

Tonight’s Debate is at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and is hosted by CNN and the Nevada Democratic Party. The moderator is CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. The debate will be broadcast to the paying folks on CNN at 5 p.m. PT (8 p.m. ET) while non-paying folks like me might get to see it on C-SPAN in a day or two. Watch it online HERE.

PRE-DEBATE ARTICLES:

CNN
AP via MSNBC: Clinton faces another debate after rough patch
WashingtonPost’s The Trail: Spoiling for a Fight
WP’s The Fix - Wag the Blog Redux: What Should Hillary Do?
NY Times’ The Caucus: Candidates Tested on Courage

Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Mike Gravel were “the only mainstream presidential candidates to answer the specific policy questions that may not have been stamped as ’safe to talk about’ by a pollster,” said Project Vote Smart president Richard Kimball.

Fox News: Dems Prepare for Showdown at Las Vegas Debate
Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left
THE NOTE: Happening in Vegas
CBS News: Pre-Debate Spin Begins
WP: The Silver State’s Golden Opportunity

DEBATE LIVE-BLOGGING:

CNN Political Ticker
Washington Post’s The Fix (?)
NY Times’ The Caucus
MSNBC First Read
ABC Political Radar
AMERICAblog: Dem Debate Live blog & Open Thread

How did drivers licenses for illegal immigrants become the dominant issue in the Democratic nomination process? This is one of those stupid distractions that the media LOVES….they can’t get enough of this issue.

AMERICAblog - Round 2

Michelle Malkin

Holly says:

Bill Richardson might as well declare his candidacy for Senate right now because he’s digging a deep hole in which to bury his VP hopes.

Holly says:

Dennis, Get Out! You don’t belong in the debates or this race.

Holly says:

This bit where the candidates sit in the chairs reminds me of The Dating Game.

POST-DEBATE ANALYSIS:

AP via WP

I’ll leave the analysis to my fellow TMV bloggers!

MISCELLANEOUS: CNN has opened State Political Tickers as follows:
IA Political Ticker
NH Political Ticker
SC Political Ticker

MEANWHILE, ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, THERE ARE EARTHQUAKES IN CHILE AND A CYCLONE IN BANGLADESH

RJ Matson, Roll Call

It was crystal-clear at tonight’s debate who the perceived front-runner was for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

They ganged up on her:

With just over two months until the first primary contest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic rivals aggressively challenged their party’s front-runner here Tuesday night, accusing her of being dishonest and of emboldening President Bush to declare war against Iran.

Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), lingering in third place in most polls, took the lead in attacking Clinton as Democrats gathered for the fourth of their six official debates. He mocked Clinton for voting to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, and all but accused her of being corrupt.

Voters, Edwards said, “deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.”

But if Edwards was going for her jugular (with no sign so far that his tougher tactics are really working in terms of a huge increase in poll numbers), Senator Barack Obama seemed to turn aside the pundits’ pre-debate advice and confirm that he does INDEED believe in a less-personal, less-demonizing form of politics (which is why he probably will not get the nomination). The Washington Post again:

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) — under pressure to take sharp aim at Clinton — criticized her directly for not releasing her correspondence as first lady. But he kept his cool demeanor, describing her tendency toward secrecy as simply “a problem.”

The most telling exchange came minutes before the debate ended, when Clinton declined to answer repeated questions about whether she supported New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer’s proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, after earlier suggesting that she did. Edwards pounced, arguing that Clinton had offered evasiveness when Americans want honesty and consistency from their leaders. “What we’ve had seven years is double talk from Bush and Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight,” he said.

So it’s clear Edwards, who in 2004 insisted he wanted a loftier form of politics, has revised his playbook to do what the conventional wisdom says is needed to win (do whatever it takes). The New York Times noted that Edwards had seemingly morphed into the debater that some had urged Obama to become:

The tone of the debate, which was sponsored by NBC News, had been established before the candidates walked onto the stage at Drexel University in Philadelphia, when Senator Barack Obama of Illinois proclaimed in an interview over the weekend that “now is the time” to begin drawing tough distinctions with Mrs. Clinton.

He did so almost immediately, accusing Mrs. Clinton of “changing positions whenever it’s politically convenient,” pointing to the North American Free Trade Agreement, torture and the war on Iraq. “Now, that may be politically savvy, but I don’t think that it offers the clear contrast that we need,” Mr. Obama said. “I think what we need right now is honestly with the American people about where we would take the country.”

But for all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who — speaking more intensely — repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton’s credentials and credibility, and frequently seemed to make the case against Mrs. Clinton that Mr. Obama had promised to make.

USA Today’s piece covered the debate and had this tidbit:

One Clinton supporter viewed her competitors’ attacks as good news. “My granddaddy used to say, ‘If you get kicked in the rear, that means you’re out front,’ ” said Bill Gray, a former Philadelphia congressman and one of the state’s most prominent African-American politicians.

One of the most interesting accounts is on the New York Times blog (which is an excellent newspaper weblog):

It’s not only Republicans who are obsessed with Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the Democrats too. She was central to virtually every question and every answer for a good part of the debate.

At several points, she sounded firm but did not take a firm position. This was most striking in the final moments of the debate on the question of whether illegal immigrants should be able to get drivers’ licenses.

Her supporters will likely say that the evening was evidence of a savvy, experienced pol who will give herself room to maneuver and not commit to something that might come back to bite her; her detractors will say it was evidence of her trying to be all things to all people. Some might call it “general-election mode.

And this:

What of the much-anticipated Obama offense? He was better at pointing out Mrs. Clinton’s muddled answers than he was at disagreeing with her. In other words, he seemed more comfortable when he raised questions about whether she was being evasive. One example: when he jumped in to say that if she was going to use her period as First Lady as evidence of her experience, she needed to open up those records from her White House years.

Still, he has an amiable quality about him that seems to resist the whole messy business. That might raise questions about how tough he would be in the Oval Office.

And what was the reaction from our vantage point here in San Diego, America’s Finest Fieriest City?

This is purely subjective (as all blog reaction is) but here are some observations from this independent voter:

1. For a debate, it was a lively one but was still Snoozeville. Part of that is due to the excruciating format of the debate with often-smirking moderators. Someone emerging from a time machine from 1960 would not think they were watching the Kennedy-Nixon debates without Kennedy and Nixon. Another reason it was zzzzzzzzzz is that most candidates seemingly rush to verbally puke-up scripted statements provided to them by their handlers (who should back off and handle them less). Or perhaps it was due to gadfly candidate Alaska Senator Mike Gravel’s absence.

2. Hillary Clinton increasingly comes across as smart, professional, competent, sturdy and even (yes) likable on television. Republicans who are praying for her to be the candidate may perhaps find they are making the same mistake made by Democrats who prayed that Ronald Reagan, a man they felt was an old fogey has-been, grade-B movie actor and a too-conservative-and-out-of-the-mainstream California governor, would run against the (ever-hapless) President Jimmy Carter. The fact is, Clinton is LEARNING and IMPROVING with each appearance — becoming a more effective television communicator. (Update: See links below because many others DISAGREE with this assessment.)

3. Barack Obama comes across as smart, likable but, increasingly, as someone who may need a bit more seasoning.The charisma he has as a speaker is absent during debates.

4. John Edwards says all the aggressive words, has the body language and the looks but still seems to be not as effective on the tube as he is said to be in person or in the courtroom. An underachiever in 2004…an underachiever in 2007. His negativity makes some points but also grates.

5. Dennis Kucinich continues on the path to being the favorite poster-boy for the Democratic Party’s far left. His comment about Bush having possible mental health problems on Iran is as reprehensible as some of the things far right talk show hosts say about Democrats. If he had been a Republican saying that about a Democrat, many Democrats would be up in arms but since political consistency means little in 21st-century America, he’ll probably be applauded in some quarters for implying Bush might need a shrink.

6. Senator Joe Biden continues to emit an aura of someone who marches to his own drummer and, if people don’t like it, they can take his drumstick and shove it…Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is thought-provoking and makes valuable points but comes across on TV as a spokesman for an AARP ad (image matters in communication)… Governor Bill Richardson remains the most non-telegenic candidate and the sloppiest in terms of exceeding his time limit and seeming to be giving “canned” responses. It’s a pity because he is one of the most intelligent political leaders on the national scene. Richardson is to centrist politics and governors what actor Nathan Lane is to Broadway — and he is to television debates what Nathan Lane is to movies.

GO TO THESE LINKS FOR SOME REACTION FROM BLOGS OF DIFFERING VIEWS:

Marc Ambinder, Crooks and Liars, Riehl World View, Talk Left (live blogging), Kevin Drum, My DD, Slog (live blogging), Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Sharon Cobb, Lonewacko, E Pluribus Unum (gives Edwards very high marks and provides a ton of like-minded links), Huffington Post (live blogging), The Crossed Pond (thinks Hillary flopped), Unlikely Words.

UPDATE:

–The Politico’s Roger Simon says Clinton bombed bigtime.

–Ed Morrissey says not that only did Hillary do poorly, but her answer on the immigration issue means that’s the issue the Republicans will use against her.

–No More Mister Nice Blog has the best line:

All of the Republican candidates for president believe that the greatest threat America faces is a Hillary Clinton presidency — and apparently all but one of the Democratic candidates for president agree.

–Firedoglake says going negative on Clinton is a mistake.

–Pop culture thinks it was “swallow the leader.”

–Starked DC

–Andrew Sullivan says Clinton lost the debate and Edwards won. Key quotes:

The obvious loser was Senator Clinton. Her constant calculation, careful parsing, avoidance of direct answers to direct questions: all these were reminders of a pure politician. She’s obviously capable, extremely intelligent, and so hollow you could almost hear the focus-grouped platitudes echo within her. She also lost that new-Clinton benign smile, that newly poll-tested glow. Instead we got an occasionally droning, lecturing, and unrelenting stream of tight-faced opportunism.

….The winner was clearly Edwards. He was concise, aggressive, completely right about Clinton and always on point. He seemed unafraid to take her on, while Obama was still playing a too-careful defense. If I were to give an instant sum-up of the debate - and I’m a blogger so it’s my job - it would be that Clinton’s profound weakness as a general election candidate was pretty badly exposed. And the main alternative just about survived as a credible presidential candidate.

–skippy

Tonight (Tuesday) at 9 PM ET at Drexel University in Philadelphia PA, televised on MSNBC and live-streamed at MSNBC.com

Previews:

MSNBC Analysis: What must Obama do?
MSNBC Analysis: Is Iran the top issue in this debate?
MSNBC First Read’s First thoughts: Debate at Drexel
MSNBC First Read: Obama, Edwards, Clinton Oppose Mukasey for AG
MSNBC First Read: Richardson’s Closer in IA?
MSNBC First Read: Clinton’s counterpunch?
MSNBC First Read: Biden wants focus on foreign policy
MSNBC First Read: What are the politics of hope?

Live-Blogging:

MSNBC’s First Read
Chris Cillizza’s The Fix (Washington Post)
The Caucus (NY Times)
AMERICAblog Democratic Debate Open Thread 1
AMERICAblog Democratic Debate Open Thread 2
AMERICAblog Democratic Debate Open Thread 3
http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/democratic-debate-open-thread-iii.html

SORRY FOLKS! Shortly after I put up this post, Time Warner Cable went down and I lost both my Internet and sub-basic cable TV package!

Guess What? Trying to watch on MSNBC.com gets the response: “Sorry. This video is unavailable.”

On the two key issues for 2008, Dennis Kucinich seems to be in tune with Democratic voters. He wants to get us out of Iraq, and he favors a single-payer not-for-profit health care plan.

But his campaign is stuck in the second tier of candidates in single digits. Why? Is he too short? Is his name too hard to pronounce and spell? Does he make voters uneasy by unconventional moves such as his recent visit to Syria? Do they tune out because his solemn air makes them uncomfortable?

Amid all the talk about a woman or Afro-American in the White House, there seems to be a resistance to taking Kucinich seriously because, in some way, he is not stereotypically presidential–too ethnic, too working-class, too head-on in confronting issues without softening the edges.

He voted against the Iraq war and, in 2004, paid his dues by earning double-digit percentages of the vote in the Maine, Minnesota, Hawaii and Oregon primaries. But this time, he comes off as a “tweener,” not as slick as John Edwards or eccentric enough like Mike Gravel to show up on a Bill Maher panel.

If we were living in a Frank Capra movie, he might have a chance. Growing up so poor that his family was often homeless, fighting his way up in Cleveland politics and slipping back so far that in 1982 he reported $38 on his tax return, coming back to win a seat in Congress and the heart of a beautiful, idealistic young woman, Dennis Kucinich is an exemplar of what used to be the American Dream.

But these days, Frank Capra movies seem to be appropriate only for Christmas, not Election Day.

Cross-posted from my blog.