Redstate

And I commented here, that the dems were completely trying to cut Gibson off when he was complimenting the surge. All 3 frontrunners, did not notice Richardson.

BTW- I clearly disagree with all the Dems, but am finding Richardson to be a very likeable guy, especially next to the other nutcases.

Volunteer for Fred- Email me- Donate below!

[Redacted tasteless comment about things that make change]
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I got the feeling that Edwards was running for the Obama VP slot. He seemed to be watching Obama's back somewhat.

Joe Schmo's blog

Thanks for watching, so I don;t have to.

Although I am starting to wonder if Clinton really will make it to the ticket.

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

surge, esecially one framed as Gibson did it -- with a careful presentation of the facts -- documenting the success of the surge, and wondering if Dems were now prepared to acknowledge that.

This was the most important moment of the debates and one that pointed up the fact that while the dems enjoy a kind of imaginary superiority on the issue of Iraq -- it's a reliable applause line at their events to demand instant pullout of troops, opportunities for Bush-bashing, etc -- the fact is that events on the ground have transformed this imaginary superiority into a liability.

The answers to Gibson's brilliantly posed question exposed the clear absence of any coherent response on this question. for a long wjile, much of this year, Democrats simply ignored all evidence of success. Since this position cannot be sustained, they have adopted the following positions:

1. The surge is a failure (this was Harry reid's position for much of 2007)

2. The surge is a failure because it has not translated into political success (Harry Reid's fallback)

3. The surge is irrelevant, it was the Anbar Awakening, which preceded the surge, that led to increased security and the defeat of AQ in Iraq (this was the position taken by Dem go-to military guy sen Jim Webb)

4. It was the defeat of Republicans in November that led to a new strategy in Iraq, hence dems are responsible for the success of the surge (Majority Leader Hoyer took this position).

Only Richardson took position 1. At least he didn't quote Gen Sanchez as his source for this.

Hillary (& Edwards, I think) took position 2, which is the basic Dem position. The problem is that, as Gibson pointed out, there are now many signs of political development as well as military success.

Obama offered a combination of 3 and 4, in what has to be one of the most bizarre statements on Iraq from any candidate. As Obama tells it, the anbar awakening came about after the elections here, when the Sunnis realized they needed to start showing progress or the Dems would end our support. To say there are many holes in that argument is an understatement.

Many thanks to gibson for getting the dems to outline their idiotic positions on this issue. It will be very helpful in the general election.

There is no polictical progress..............Enough is Enough.....

Hillary decided to take the gloves off in this debate, and that may have caused Obama to make this mistake -- she'd been very hands-off before.

Hillary: "When it comes to lobbyists, Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist, he lobbies for the drug companies."

Obama: "That's not so."

Since it was New Hampshire, she pointed out that Jim Demers is a lobbyist -- neglecting to mention that he was a state lobbyist. The Obama campaign spokespeople have said he is a state lobbyist only and that is an important distinction.

Even more interestingly, Obama's campaign co-chair, Jim Hodges, is a registered Federal lobbyist. The Obama campaign said he was only a state lobbyist.

----------

I'm not saying the above means a blessed thing. Jim might not have even informed Obama's campaign that he registered to be a federal lobbyist in 2007. But flatly denying that his New Hampshire chair was a lobbyist at all (even a state one), and then his federal chair being a federal lobbyist, after his two minute ad in Iowa specifically talking about being against lobbyists, this could be bad for him in the month between the NH primary and Super Tuesday.

And if he does get the nomination, it will be a major liability.

After the debate, I'm almost thinking Richardson will be the "comeback kid" this year.

As an aside, what do you think about Hillary's response to her "likability" question?

(Sources:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g0_Gqy82V2iM8iwU-FPjci9kFX9QD8U0PTO00

Off the cuff thoughts on her response if you did:

"Sorry, I don't carry anything that small on me"

"No, but I know a good broker and if you give him that $20 he'll change it into as many $20's as you want"

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.