"By the time she's done she'll have driven her supporters nuts."

Not me, I am enjoying the three ring circus.  Obama, btw, isn't doing very well in the debates. Got any explanation as to why?

Now you're going after Chelsea? Have some decency.  

Who cares about Chelsea?  She's volunteering here in L.A., meeting and greeting twentysomethings who are JUST LIKE HER!  Except that she's followed around by her acolytes--friends from Martha's Vineyard! Stanford!  Private school!  Sorry, she lost her hands-off status when she started showing up with Mommy Dearest.

"I've been thinking about Hillary's ideological journey ever since she was a Barry Goldwater girl at Wellesley."  I guess I know what you're trying to say, but could you watch the syntax on this blog?

It's very hard to read.

Molly, I agree. She is making a six figure salary, doesn't seem to have to show up for work, and is campaigning actively. She is well past the age of adulthood as well. I would love to know how she got such a sweetheart deal of a job, or is it natural for hedge funds to pay out 6 figures just to have an expresidents name on the payroll?

Chelsea went to Stanford, she's probably pretty smart (her parents sure are) and I don't see her lecturing anyone.

I agree with Jackson, Obama (my favored candidate) struggles a bit in the debate format. He seems better on the stump and better at giving a long speech.

That 'not sure who I'm running against' line though sure exhibited a quick mind.

All in all, a meteoric rise and a whole lot of polish for someone so new to the national game. He's standing toe to toe with HRC and Edwards, veterans both.

Very natural--just like it's worth six figures or more to have a president, his vice, you name it on payroll of a board.   How do you think Gore is paying for his 11,000-square-foot "green" manse?  (Which is a kind of oxymoron when you think about it.)

Supposedly, Benedict Arnold (before he traded sides) opted to fight a superior British force in a snowstorm, because it would 'even the odds.'

That's what I thought it felt like HRC was doing last night... like, 'we're both bitchy and compromised, who you gonna believe?'

mmathog, I too loved Obama's, "Sometimes I'm not sure who I'm running against."  But, I doubt he came up with it on the spur of the moment.  I think he's been thinking it-- and probably saying it around the campiagn bus-- for a long time.

ChanRobt et al. :  

Obama might do well to start using the mantra (spontaneously or not) " After 16 years, it's time to restore personal AND political integrity to the White House."  It's a positive statement with negative connotattions to which the Clintons have no credible rejoinder -- and cannot co-opt as their own battle cry.

A new low for Marty -- unless I missed Al Gore Jr.imperiling innocent people on the road, you might want to shut-the-f-up about how politician's kids serve the greater good.  Marty, why don't you go over on the Plank and leave a post about how you'll gladly sacrifice the supreme court, health care, the environment, and pretty much everything your nobel winning pal stands for if Hillary beats Obama?  Oh, I forgot, because unlike them, you've been too cowardly to admit it.

lymon, not everyone is as liberal as you. Marty need not apologize for his beliefs, neither will I. I am a conservative Democrat. I supported the Iraq war but not Bush's handling of it. I also support Free trade, and support the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me a coward. And doesn't mean I am sacrificing anything.

As America recovers from the gladiator-like contest that was Monday's Democratic debate, we look ahead to the next battleground, South Carolina. Well, not everyone: Recognizing that the state's large black population has decisively tipped to polls in

Blackton, you misunderstand me: -- I've repeatedly asked Marty in light of all his anti-HRC venom which Republican candidates (any? all?) he'd vote for over HRC.  THe posters on TNR at least gave their honest opinion.  That's the coward reference, not the beliefs.  I have dear friends who supported Pat Buchanan -- I understand their isolationist populism and know that it comes from their good faith beliefs in what's best for the nation.  I share a lot of Marty's beliefs on, for example, Darfur, but I rail against the way he selectively applies them to the candidates.  Or for that matter the public service of the candidates' adult children.  

fwiw I detest Bill's recent behavior, and agree with Dick Morris that he and HRC are deliberately making the campaign into a racial one, but me, I'd still vote for HRC instead of any Republican.

Marty, how about you?

lymon, given that TNR endorsed McCain back in 2000 I can certainly see where Marty will vote for him. strange as it might be to defend him but I think the ballot box is secret. He can rant and rave against whomever he wants but is under no obligation to divulge whom he will vote for. Of course you are free to disregard his ranting against Hillary, but to call him a coward for keeping secret that which is (and our) fundamental right is a bit much. Granted, I know this is a bit of an arcane argument to make but IIRC Tep made a great point years back about not having psuedonyms here. I was in favor of not having them but became convinced by Tep that  Essentially it came down to "it's none of anyones goddamn business"

true, blackie, and thanks for the plug, but it seems a bit odd to read Mr P divulging more about his investments than his voting behavior. In a political magazine, that is.

blackton -- as I said, I have no quarrel if he wants to endorse McCain.  And if he wants to retire from punditry, I'd respect that too.  What should NOT be respected is coyness in a pundit who demonizes one candidate without divulging his opinion of the others (save one).  Obviously he has the "right" to keep that info secret, but I have the right to call him on it (at least at his pleasure of keeping this an open comment board).   As for the psuedonyms, it's a fair point: perhaps one not writing under their (full) name shouldn't be calling someone who does a coward.  But that reflects on me, it doesn't change the underlying truth (or falsity) of what I'm saying.

For the most astute analysis of how the Clintons turned Obama from a crossover and transcendant candidate into another in a line of Democratic black candidates, see Pat Buchanan's current column (Jan 23).

TNR dudes have a blind spot about Buchanan.  Even where he agrees with the majority of you in opposition to the Iraq war, and better supports his argument again than does the Left, he's never given credit by the Left.

And now, he has absolutely nailed the cunning with which the two Clintons set the pincer trap that is marginalizing his candidacy.

Talk about diabolical, the Clintons would have thrived in the Kremlin, back in the day.

Aye Channy. It IS a thing of wonder to watch these operators. I still hope that Obama can slingshot his victory in SC with bullseye into the heart of darkness. (so to speak) He's going to have to hit hard somehow. Maybe truth and integrity have some weight yet.

I really do think that an Obama-McCain candidacy would exorcize some of the more debilitating demons in our political discourse and pragmatic progressions.

Dick Morris had an excellent column in The Hill arguing, with more precision, how Billary are trying to pull this off. Take it with as much salt as you like, it's pretty persuasive. And repulsive.