I'm watching the CNN Democratic Debate right now. Obama seems to really have found his voice with the whole deal being mano a mano. Hillary seems on the defensive in this debate. I don't know if it'll have a demonstrable effect. But...it seems really clear to me that he's got a strength in this debate that he's not previously had.

Any other takes?

I agree. He seems much more comfortable.

and it's nice to see them both showing respect for each other too.

If the live blogging comments on the NY Times web site are indication, Obama is gaining ground. Just in the sense that the comments are usually heavily titled towards Hillary and today, it's still pro-Hillary, but there is a strong bend towards Obama. I don't think it's anything "important" but I do like it to gauge where people are with things.

Another comment is, I'm AMAZED that he's kept up with her in terms of his ability to fundraise. When he first announced his campaign, I thought he'd struggle to raise money, but he's done a hell of a job getting enough cash to go toe-to-toe with the Clinton financial juggernaut.

I'm sure it helps that they both represent two of the largest cities in the country, but she's been preparing her bid since her first Senate campaign and so, she's obviously had a lot of time to fundraise.

Given the ground he's had to cover, it's impressive that he's managed to make it even this far.

The fact that Obama could pull in 170,000 new donors in January is simply amazing.

Not only that, but wherever Obama goes, he has rallies that draw tens of thousands of people. Whatever else he may be, he's inspiring.

His gloating is a little premature, but I understand it. It's hard to be humble when you're right. But we don't know if he'll be right yet. Obviously it's looking like McCain will be the nominee. Romney isn't leading any Super Tuesday states that has been polled thus far. Republican primaries like New York, Arizona, and New Jersey are winner take all and McCain should win all of those. He'll also probably win the big state of California. Huckabee and Romney may win a state here and there, but it should be over February 5th.

The Democratic race is far from over. The debate tonight was basically a wash. Of the Super Tuesday states that have been polled, Clinton is winning in the rcp averages in 6/7. Obama is leading in Georgia. Clinton expanded her lead by 18 points in Massachussets according to the latest poll despite Kennedy and Kerry's endorsements. She's going to dominate New York and New Jersey. Obama has made grounds in California and Alabama. He'll dominate Illinois and win Georgia. So basically it's a tossup and it may still be after Super Tuesday.

While his actual skill as a potential president is debatable, his skill as a political orator is unsurpassed in modern history.

Somehow I doubt that. How's the fact checking going on with the NAFTA Superhighway, anyways? Oh, right, you didn't check those facts or a million others before posting inane comments.

When does "modern" history start? ;)

I'd say that Reagan guy was pretty good as a political orator.

You're saying that the NAFTA Highway is not being planned as we speak? What part of that is not correct? Think its you in La La Land on this one.

It's actually pretty scary when you think about it. Right now, it is possible to drive from the Mexican border all the way to the Canadian border without ever having to leave a road.

Your tax dollars at work.

Also, please check Kennedy, John Fitzgerald. He could turn a phrase.

Agreed. His speeches from about 50 years ago were very inspiring.

NAFTA Highway?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'll be playing blackjack with jb, so it doesn't bother me.

Indeed, they were. I'm sorry I missed them. My father has told me some interesting stories about his time on the Kennedy campaign in 1960.

[grumpyoldman] But you whippersnappers should know that the "modern presidency" did not start on your birthday. Most definitions of the "modern presidency" start no later than the beginning of the television era. But really, it goes back to FDR and the steps he took to consolidate power in the executive branch.

I hope you learned something. Now I'm going to go walk uphill in the snow to my one room schoolhouse. [/grumpyoldman]

I'd agree that Obama's oratory is the best we've seen as a nation in at least 8 years. I was at a campaign event for VA Governor Tim Kaine in 2005 at which Obama appeared. He was electric. I don't know what "it" is, but he definitely has it.

Reagan had an excellent delivery on prepared speeches, especially when reading off of a teleprompter. However, when speaking off the cuff, he would often stammer and stumble for words.

I'm one of the few, but I actually am very fond of Dubya's oratory.

That explains it.

Ann Coulter has just announced: If McCain is the GOP nominee, she will actively campaign for Hillary. Funny stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

Wow, that would be big blow for Hillary. :D

+1

It took me a while to get past his voice - it sounds fake and pretentious.

I don't know when Coulter lost it, but she has gone wacko the last two or three months. There was a time when she wasn't such a hack, but that was long ago.

As a rule, anything that drives Coulter nuts -- I like.

I'm gonna need an explanation here.

The last "two or three months"? I think it was way before that.

Ann Coulter has never gone wacko. That implies that there was a time she wasn't batshit insane.

I could only watch half the clip before feeling a strong urge to stab my laptop.

What can I say? I just enjoy listening to him talk, more so than Bill Clinton or Hillary or Papa Bush or even McCain really.

I'm in Alabama and I've only seen Obama and Huckabee ads. I dunno if it means anything but I'm just saying

Figures. Some of you guys (generically-speaking) rightly never gave any credence to what Coulter had said and now she is taken seriously?

I've always given a lot of credence to what Coulter has said insofar as how it relates to putting money in her pocket. She is an exceptionally shrewd businesswoman, and rest assured that she doesn't do or say anything without calculating the potential benefit.

+1

Same here.

There's obviously times Bush loses himself and stops making sense (and those are the moments you see on the Daily Show), but more of the time, once he gets rolling, he has a pretty inspirational manner of speaking - (if you can seperate the manner from the points he's making). And obviously all that ties together, and I'm not a Bush suporter, but the guy can control a room.

It's really amazing how people can get such different viewpoints from the same thing. When I watch him speak I hear condescension and mangled syntax. Granted, I agree with him on practically nothing, so that might play a part.

My thing with Coulter is that when she first, first, first started, she actually made some points (as most pundits that make a name for themselves do). Then, she became a bigger deal than her message, and then she proceeded into hackdom. Finally, in the last few months she has gone bat-shit crazy.

Crazy like a fox. All the way to the bank.

Thanks for making my point.

Ah, this to me would be an obvious example of a terrible orator. Go figure.

Still waiting, your point being that NAFTA doesn't really exist, or that it does exist and its a good thing? Which is it? How does being non-committal and obtuse make you look like anything more than a side-stepping liberal?

Like when you ignored the point about Bush's port giveaway? You side step counterpoints in almost every thread you dissolve.

Just a slight correction - liberals don't side step. Point obfuscating conservative idiot apologists side-step. *cough*

Thanks, I almost used that word in my last post, then realized that the first to call names loses. Always the liberal thing to do.

care to reference your earlier negative connotation regarding foreign involvement in our country vs. Bush's port deal, or are you going to pull a Limbaugh, lie or make a ridiculous statement than not apologize when caught in it or clear up the hypocrisy in it? I mean at least he's high.

Liberal isn't a bad word, fuck is, shit is, etc.

Liberal's first response when losing an argument is to name-call. You and a few others here do it on a steady basis. If I do it I get 'boxed', but conservatives have learned long ago that we need to win on merit while liberals get a free pass on trolling.

Like Lee Marvin says to Robert Ryan in Dirty Dozen..."You really are quite...emotional...aren't you?"

how about the Bush Ports deal? You missed out on that, again.

You referenced as a bad thing, foreign involvement in our country, we're you against the ports deal? Just want to make sure youre consistent.

...and why does it take 4 reminders to get you to comment on the FACTUAL stuff, that you claim to be all about, but when it comes to name calling you're tit for tat. If you would debate about the issues, like this one, and the hypocrisy or consistency, that would be nice. So what is this, poke number 4 on the same issue to get you to see if youre going to be consistent when it comes to foreign involvement in our government and country. BTW, for reference I was WRONG on the issue originally and was able to listen to oppositional standpoints and be open minded enough to change my viewpoint on the issue.....but am still glad it didnt happen.

amazing. I saw him on here reading it yet still nothing. Tis easier to spin BS and get into a namecalling contest than actually debate issues or fact, for him.

sorry to hijack the thread, back to your regularly scheduled thread but please note this as another time where BW ignored a direct response or question regarding an issue he brought up.

Yes, let's get back to talking about Super Tuesday.
New polls show Connecticut and Missouri up for grabs. Both within the MOE. Alabama is a dead heat.
Chicago Tribune poll shows Obama ahead by 30 points in Illinois.
Still no new post debate California poll without Jonn Edwards.
Hillary is still way ahead in Tennessee, New York, New Jersey, and Massachussetts.
Minnesota, Alaska, Colorado, Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Delaware, Idaho, and North Dakota have not been polled.

I have a question. What polls are generally considered to be the most reliable? For example, in Tennessee, InsiderAdvantage has Hilary up 33%, Rasmussen has Hilary up 14%, and WSMV-TV has Hilary up only 5%. I don't see how all these polls could possibly be accurate if they were all setup correctly. All of these polls were taken between January 28th and January 30th.

look for the ones with the lowest margin of error combined with an actual disclaimer about who they polled.

obviously one that polls only women in one community at a grocery store is going to be less accurate then one that polls 5,000 people at random by telephone.