Mixing It Up

The candidates tend to explain their policy decisions using short tern and the lingua franca of the Senate, which makes it hard to referee these disputes. So the candidates who refuse to jump in usually wind up looking better. And John Edwards is looking better.

BTW: this is the first time Obama's "present" votes have been brought up in a Democratic debate...something the Clinton campaign has been flaying for months.

Obama is under the heaviest scrutiny tonight... Edwards seems him as the thing standing between himself and Clinton.... Clinton wants to start a longer conversation in the Feb. 5 states about whether Obama is all hat and no cattle.

Comments

"Hilary wants to start a conversation about all hat and no cattle".

Where did that come from? Just saw the exact same phrasing by a Clinton partisan at Digby.

Talking points memo's indeed.

Posted by JC | January 21, 2008 8:53 PM

It's also the first time Rezko came up.

Posted by JedReport | January 21, 2008 9:05 PM

Aren't the present votes just a parliamentary idiosyncrasy of the Illinois legislature? Basically a way to table a problematic bill. I know that's why the Illinois Planned Parenthood asked Obama and others to vote present on some bills. It was a way to kill it. I don't understand why Obama can't just come out and say that.

Posted by Callimaco | January 21, 2008 9:15 PM

How many presidential candidates have served in State Legislatures?

In fact, it will be great for us to have a president who served in the State House, was a community organizer, and is a constitutional law scholar.

And, likewise, it will be sad for us to have a president who is a spousal beneficiary with series of experiences that are essentially false-judgements.

Posted by eorse | January 21, 2008 9:30 PM

Isn't the best way to show you want to "kill" a bill to vote against it?

Voting in a way that doesn't allow people to examine your record is a serious issue. Especially when a candidate appears to speak in a lot of empty platitudes about bi partisian ship, working together etc. In that case it begins to look like a clear attempt at masking yourself from important decisions so your votes can't be used against you.

You're there to represent your consituents and vote on the bills, not just take a pass.

Posted by sam | January 21, 2008 10:24 PM

The thing standing between Edwards and Clinton is a love child.

Posted by Paul | January 21, 2008 10:25 PM

It is the first time Rezko came up and Obama's answer was completely dishonest. He tried to spin his involvement with Rezko as five hours of work as a young law firm associate. Then he talked about the importance of honesty in politics. Nice.....

I guess Obama forgot the $160,000+ in campaign contributions from Rezko and his assoiciates, or the fact that Rezko's wife bought the parcel adjacent to Obama's house and then sold a piece of it back to him, or that Rezko is under indictment for fraud and corruption and is set to go to trial next month. Like maybe no one will notice if he doesn't talk about it....

This was the most important moment of the debate, if anyone was paying attention.

Posted by njh | January 21, 2008 11:52 PM

Sam go read Obama's website or a Chicago newspaper website...they have covered this over and over and should prove an easy search for all the details.

In short it's one of the quirks of how things are done in Illinois. I'd lay odds if you phoned your state senator they'd tell you they have a system akin to it too in your state.

Want more? Go do the research.

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 22, 2008 3:57 AM