Marti Abernathey

Live Blogging The CNN Debates

Filed By Marti Abernathey | February 21, 2008 8:07 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, CNN debate

I'm Live blogging the CNN Debates under the cut...

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I watched the debated tonight. I see two equal candidates that should be on the same ticket running together, not against each other. Please help me for those of us who are democrats. Please contact the DNC, your local democratic leaders
and demand Hillary and Barrack be placed on the same ticket for 2008. Together these two candidates would be the best democratic team in American History!


Hillary & Barrack 2008!
"Experience Change in 2008!"

Danielle Clarke | February 22, 2008 8:14 AM

I will never ever vote for Hillary Clinton. She twist words and lies and will say anything to get elected. Its sick to think we would have someone like her running this country.

What an interesting live blogging format. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

Yeah, interesting to keep on having debates like these....

I wrote about this movement to "unite the party" here, and I think it's a bit premature. There's no sign either in votes or fundraising that this is having a negative affect on Democrats. I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. America CANNOT afford four more years of Bush, which is exactly what a McCain presidency would be.

I can't vote for ether of them. their immigration policies and their lack of commitment on bringing our service men and women home from the unjust/illegal wars they are in is incomputable with my political agenda. Not to mention that any woman who lets her husband screw around is not worthy of the White House. Something about not taking vows seriously. how ether of them swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United states if they don't take their marriage vows seriously.

Take care

Michael Bedwell | February 22, 2008 11:33 AM

Sue you are nothing if not consistent.

"their immigration policies"—while far from perfect—are far better than the candidate who would win if everyone thought, [must...not....write...what....I....really...feel] like you.

"lack of commitment on bringing our service men and women home from the unjust/illegal wars" 1., they have said they would withdraw most troops from at least Iraq. You're apparent refusal to believe them [or previously unknown ability to read minds], therefore, is incorrect and therefore irrelevant. 2. By not voting for one of them you are de facto voting for McCain, who's still trying to win the Vietnam War, and, oh yeah, said something about, let me see, now I remember, supporting KEEPING American troops in Iraq FOR THE NEXT ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

"Not to mention that any woman who lets her husband screw around is not worthy of the White House." Ladies & Germs, that now concludes "Our Sexist Moment of the Day." It could also be interpreted as "Twin Clinton Guilt by Association #432 Turned Upside Down"—hubby got a BJ so punish the wife!

And while Marti and I have disagreed, I rejoice on our agreement that we must unite to drive the Repugs back to the political wilderness, though I would amplify her reason to, "we cannot afford a Supreme Court stacked with civil liberty fascists for the next THIRTY years!"

And, Dean, though I already hoped one would CHOOSE the other to run with him/her, you've made me wonder if this is something the superdelegates can procedurally mandate? Wow! [On the downside, if they have anything to do with Obama not being on the ticket I'm convinced that many Obama supporters will sit out the electionn in numbers that frighten me.]

I'm ALWAYS wrong when predicting political outcomes [can MOI be blamed for finding it impossible to believe that so many would vote for Nixon, Reagan, AND Bush???], but bear with me while I indulge my fantasy of a combined woman/black man ticket [regardless of the order] that would result in a virtually orgasmic landslide in November, generating a "mandate" so powerful and enough cooperating Congressmen/women on their coattails to pass landmark legislation of all kinds. And before the predictable cynic weighs in about how inadequate their goals are let me just say two things: prove to me how they would not still be better than what we currently have—and Sue is waiting for your call.

Every Human Being is flawed. EVERY ONE. You can't get around that. You cannot get the perfect person to run for President, because that person doesn't exist.

If you go into an election judging any of the candidates on one item and one item only that you do or don't like about them, then you are deluding yourself. Even if you pick three items about that person. The WHOLE PERSON has to be factored in. Who is the BEST PERSON for the job. Hell, even McCain has some good points. Huckabee? . . . maybe not so much.

Michael makes a lot of good points. You can call it the "lesser of two evils" if you like, but the bottom line is go to to the polls in November and vote. Whining about a candidate based on one issue shows nothing more than an uneducated voter. Some people need to learn to engage their brain before alllowing their fingers to touch the keyboard.