The Breakfast Club

This morning in Manhattan, Sen. Barack Obama had a 40- minute breakfast meeting with Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The meeting has fueled speculation that either Bloomberg is looking for someone to endorse or Obama is looking for a billionaire to buy him breakfast.

Stay tuned...

The CNN/YouTube Republican Debate

In “Post Game Spin” after the last democratic debate, Goose discussed his disappointments with the way the debate was organized and moderated. My initial thoughts from tonight’s Republican debate are similarly critical. I like the idea of letting “the people” ask the presidential candidates questions but I do not think that allowing YouTube videos in from across the country is the best way to do it. The opening clips of the ridiculous questions set a strange feel for a debate that is discussing such serious and difficult issues. Similarly, why would CNN choose to follow the bloopers with a sophomoric and misplaced song about the candidates? If I saw that song on YouTube, I would have stopped watching after two verses and I did not enjoy having to sit through it at this debate. Before moving on to more substantive matters, I think that the questions asked to the candidates should be done in a respectful manner. The debate is a relatively serious and important venue to learn about the candidates that could be running our country. Some of the questions came from individuals wearing backwards hats and sunglasses, an Uncle Sam cartoon, and an individual eating corn and slurring his words. It also seemed like CNN did not do their homework and review the candidates’ videos before they were aired. Anderson Cooper had to improvise after Thompson’s 30 second video and, rather than go to commercial as he’d planned, he just asked Thompson “What’s up with that?” It just did not seem like the tone of the debate was appropriate or that CNN had planned the debate carefully.

One thing that immediately caught my attention was the focus on Hillary Clinton in the 30 second candidate’s ads. Multiple candidates (Giuliani, McCain and others) focused their ads on the differences between them and Hillary and how they could beat Hillary. McCain’s tagline at the end of his ad was “The Conservative that will beat Hillary.” Last I checked, Obama is gaining a lot of ground on Hillary in Iowa and the race is far from over. Yes, Hillary is in the lead but why are the candidates focusing on how they can beat her? I would think that, for the Republican presidential candidates, it would be more important for them to differentiate themselves from eachother than to attack Hillary.

The discussion of gun control seemed like an NRA pep rally. The candidates proudly talked about their personal gun collections and when Giuliani suggested putting reasonable government restrictions (like a written exam) on access to guns, he was met by Boos. I thought that this section of the debate did not add much to our knowledge of the candidates’ status on this issue.

With respect to the candidates’ performances, I was impressed by Mike Huckabee. First, I thought it was hilarious that the first person they showed in the audience was Chuck Norris (who endorsed Huckabee) and then, during the first question to Giuliani, they showed him again in the audience. What I liked about Huckabee’s performance was that he respected the time limits and answered the questions. Like Joe Biden at the democratic debates, Huckabee kept his answers short and answered the questions presented to him. I could not say the same thing about Fred Thompson who seemed to sidestep most questions. For example, Thompson could not choose 3 federal programs he would cut but rather, said he would cut 100 programs and he did not specify the top programs he would focus on.

I thought that Giuliani sounded like a broken record throughout a lot of the debate. Joe Biden once said that Giuliani can only say “a noun, a verb and 9/11” in every sentence he speaks. Tonight, he seemed obsessed with how dangerous NY was before he was elected mayor and the percentages of crimes that went down while he was mayor.

I thought that Mitt Romney was one of the more impressive candidates. I thought he did an excellent job of replying to Giuliani’s attack about a “Sanctuary Mansion.” Living in Los Angeles, I think it would be virtually impossible to never hire a company or eat at a restaurant that employs undocumented workers. It’s not reasonable to fault Romney for hiring a company that hired illegal immigrants. So, I thought Giuliani’s attack was pretty tasteless.

BC Eagles crowned college football champions

The weekly feature, Tuesday Morning Quarterback, on espn.com, asks the question: If academics mattered, who would play for the national championship?

This might seem purely rhetorical fare, but the authors have provided an answer courtesy of Lindsey Luebchow, a policy analyst of the New America Foundation and a contributor to Higher Ed Watch. Ms. Luebchow devised an equation to provide an answer, and crown a champion of the A/BCS (Academic Bowl Championship Series).

The A/BCS formula starts with the football team's four-class average federal graduation rate, which includes all football players who entered college between 1997 and 2000 and graduated within six years. Football programs then earn or lose points based on three criteria. First, the gap between the graduation rate of the team and the overall school. Second, the gap between the black-white graduation rate disparity on the team and at the overall school. Third, the team's Academic Progress Rate, a measure developed by the NCAA that evaluates how many student-athletes are advancing toward a degree.

The winner among the nation's top 25 college football teams? Well, it wasn't even close, and, as you can probably guess by the simple fact that I am writing this post, my very own Boston College Eagles came out on top with a score of 127.8.

Here are how the BCS bowls would shake out if academics were taken into account:

Allstate BCS Championship Game:
Boston College (127.80) vs. Cincinnati (97.25)

Rose Bowl Presented by Citi:
Auburn (73.15) vs. Boise State (68.90)

FedEx Orange Bowl:
Virginia (60.45) vs. Virginia Tech (60.15)

Tostitos Fiesta Bowl:

Clemson (59.35) vs. USC (51.65)

Allstate Sugar Bowl:

West Virginia (47.85) vs. Arizona State (46.35)

Exiled to the bottom of the A/BCS and the pre-New-Year's bowls named after lawn equipment and mufflers:

21. LSU (29.95)

22. Ohio State (28.55)

23. Oregon (8.35)

24. Texas (7.85)

25. Hawaii (-2.35)

So BC, which routinely graduates between 98-100% of its footballers, had a score of close to 130, while no other school cracked 100.

BC is currently ranked #11 in the BCS, and takes on Virginia Tech (60.15) for its conference championship on Saturday.

English Only?

In today's opinion section of the Wall Street Journal John Fund takes Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to task for "holding up a $53 billion appropriations bill funding the FBI, NASA and Justice Department solely to block an attached amendment, passed by both the Senate and House, that protects the [Salvation Army] and other employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies."

The assimilation argument is on.

Fund points out that the assimilation was the policy of the US government, even as immigrants poured over the boarder in the early 1900s.

The U.S. used to welcome immigrants while at the same time encouraging assimilation. Since 1906, for example, new citizens have had to show "the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English."

Fund points out that English-only policies are still very popular (77% in a new poll support the right of employers to have English- only policies), but says that "hardball politics practiced by ethnic grievance lobbies is driving assimilation into the dustbin of history."

This showdown comes as a result of a lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of two Salvation Army employees of a thrift store in Massachusetts. The employees were given one year to adjust to the company's English- only workplace environment, and were fired after they did not comply.

We'll see how far Pelosi is willing to take this battle, but judging by the numbers it could be a winning cause for Republicans.

Jackson: The best candidate for African Americans? John Edwards

In today's Chicago Sun Times, civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, a formidable presidential candidate in 1984 and '88 wrote an op-ed about the failure of Democrats to speak to the plight of Black America.

Jackson points out that blacks provided the margin of victory for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in key battle ground states. He asks: Can Democrats get the votes they need by simply not being Republicans?

In a campaign with two minorities at the top of national polls, including perhaps the most "viable" African American candidate ever, Jackson singles out a white man as speaking the best to the tough issues facing Black America.

Yet the Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign -- have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country.

Wow. Think that caught the attention of Barack Obama's campaign? Hillary Clinton, the wife of "America's first Black president," is stung by the assessment, too, but her campaign probably likes it because it makes Obama look worse, especially with Oprah getting ready to hit his campaign trail.

All in all, though, it's hard to argue with Jackson's points. It's not an unique sentiment. Obama's numbers among African American voters have been less than spectacular, prompting his wife to assure that Black America will "wake up and get it" when it comes to supporting her husband.

Well, it looks like Jackson is sleeping through Obama's campaign thus far. And that, in his view, Democratic candidates are sleeping through a tremendous opportunity with Black voters. Well, almost all of them anyway.

NY Times: Spitzer Profile

The New York Times has an interesting profile of NY Governor Elliot Spitzer and his "rough" first year in office. My feelings on the issue are well-trod, so check this out for yourself.

The most interesting part is how Spitzer is trying to reshape his governing style, and essentially his personality. He's gone from focusing on the no-holds-barred style of a Roosevelt or Al Smith, to the more sticks and carrots approach of LBJ.

“I’m not naturally suited to this job, perhaps,” Mr. Spitzer said in the interview. “But maybe, at this point in time, we need someone who is not naturally suited to it to get done the transformative things that the public wants done.”

Picture of the Day 11/27

President George W. Bush welcomed the American winners of the 2007 Nobel Prizes at the White House, yesterday. Among them was former Vice President Al Gore, who split the peace prize for his work on global warming. The two former rivals met privately in the Oval Office before the rest of the delegation arrived. For Gore it was his first time in the Oval Office since he left the Vice Presidency in 2000.

When a White House reporter asked Gore if he missed the White House, Gore responded, "When you leave this beat, I'll ask you the same question."

Gore won the popular vote over President Bush, but lost the electoral college by 537 votes in Florida after the Supreme Court stopped the recounts there.

The Heavyweight Undercard

In msnbc.com's "First Read" segment today, there is a report about former President Bill Clinton and talk show queen, Oprah Winfrey, and how they'll be stumping for Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, respectively. The two will be in Iowa today doing their best to convince voters to support their candidate, and each bring a certain measure of star power doused with credibility. Clinton, a former Commander-in-Chief, can communicate like no other pol can, and not reek of hackery like the rest of them. Oprah reaches millions of women daily with her syndicated show, and has a well-round track record of endorsing products people believe she genuinely feels positive towards.

And it will be those same women, among other demographics, that Mr. Clinton will be gunning for. Oprah may have the cultural lock, speaking to them on a daily basis, but he may feel his good track record on women's rights will swing the ladies to the side of his wife. Each person carries considerable weight when it comes to influencing demographic opinions.

Let's not ignore the racial components that come into play. Oprah, despite her massive success and predominantly white audience, still holds considerable sway among Blacks as a woman of integrity and dignity who made it despite being handicapped by what still holds many Black folks behind. Meanwhile, President Clinton has the honor of being considered the first Black President of the U.S., something Obama has yet to address. Being a white man and considered a Black President has to be an elephant in the room for the Obama campaign, and the one person to remind folks that godly communication skills don't negate racial features and achievements is Ms. Winfrey, herself.

Still, there's something quite unauthentic about this Democratic primary, and leave it to the showdown between two of the greatest communicators of their generation to bring that point home. Obama has a message of hope and change, but is cast as an inexperienced politician. The Hill seems to bring a message of competence and also change, yet is cast as a calculating tactician who will do and say almost anything for power. Neither has really shown that they can shake off these labels, whether on the stump or in debates. Each candidate has their moments, but too often are seen exemplifying their caricatures. Getting big names to stump is almost like spraying potpourri in a putrid-smelling room. It may be nice for now, but the source of the problem still persists.

Quote of the Day 11/26

“It's [time to] take the mask off and take a look at what kind of governor was he... He throws stones at people. And then on that issue he usually has a worse record than whoever he’s throwing stones at... I think there’s a difference between a guy who gets results, real results, that were applauded nationwide and somebody who had a mixed record at best as governor.”

- Rudy Giuliani in his most pointed attack on rival Mitt Romney. The gloves are off, and it seems that Giuliani is ready to try and take a chunk out of Mitt's big lead in New Hampshire.

This is a rhetorical shift for Rudy, who has been saving this kind of language for Hillary Clinton, in an effort to portray himself as the presumptive nominee. So the fact that Rudy is going after Romney now is probably a good sign for Mitt. Now he just has to respond. So far, the Romney campaign called the comments "nasty."

Possibilites and Peace: All in Vain?

This week, Israeli, Arab and American leaders and diplomats meet in Annapolis, MD to try and hammer out a Middle East peace deal that all sides (and this is this blogger's hope) look to have lasting, positive impacts. Bush's two-state plan will be discussed, as well as several of the classic points that have always made their way onto the agenda of these American-brokered negotiations. From border redrawings to refugees to national identity recognition, all that will be discussed is vital in and of itself to Israelis and Palestinians, and each issue impacts the greater Middle East in uniquely profound ways.

Msnbc.com reports of President George W. Bush's optimism about the talks, this following his meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. This president's optimism, it should be noted, is as dependable to go on as Iago's advice to Othello. The outline of what is to be discussed has yet to be agreed upon, Syria has, at the eleventh hour, decided to join the negotiations and they haven't agreed on the agenda, and representatives from Hamas were not invited, despite the fact that they control the Gaza Strip, home to over one million Palestinians. Further undermining Mr. Bush's optimism (or it should, at least) is the fact that Iraq's democratic project has yet to yield any political results since the "Surge", and the diplomatic showdown with Iran leaves open questions to Tehran's military support of Hezbollah and Hamas. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush is positive he can work something out, and in the end, possibly steal the Nobel Peace Prize President Clinton lost due to his failure to bang out a pragmatic agreement.

Of course, a pragmatic agreement should be the goal, but it never seems to be the aim of these summits. What's going on between Hamas in Gaza and Western Israel is nothing short of war, just as that between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas is nothing short of civil war. Yet, Hamas is absent from the negotiations, despite being democratically elected in a Western-sponsored election. Many will say consequences follow democratic elections (we should know), and that the Palestinians must deal with the consequences of electing Hamas. Those same critics always fail to note the precarious position the West and Israel placed Palestinians in, resulting in these two choices: a corrupt incumbency that's done little to improve living standards, or a militant organization at constant war with the obvious aggressor, Israel (obvious to Palestinians, of course). There's no excusing Hamas shelling western Israeli towns and suicide bomb runs, and Israel must retaliate beyond accordingly. But to negotiate sans your enemy does more than further antagonizes him; it makes him an entrenched obstacle to any implementation of policies agreed upon by "all" sides.

Msnbc.com also has a piece highlighting the pessimism among Palestinians and Israelis, those living under the current system, and who will live under any agreeable condition. They've been here before, as have we all, watching America take the lead in something no other Middle Eastern state seems capable of handling, if indeed they had the stomach to. It's a process led by history, and that's always the first mistake. Rarely, if ever, has there ever been an analyses of the status quo and future aspirations of the peoples involved. Whether it was Arafat unreasonably demanding the return of every Palestinian refugee or Barrack irresponsibly agreeing to partition Jerusalem, there's never been any lasting agreement because the most dominant player, and peace broker, doesn't live with the consequences of the decision. Instead of leading negotiations, the U.S. should propel Mid East leaders to assume such a role.

I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt much will change come next week. Israelis on the Golan Heights will continue to feel at home, but not at peace. A Hamas soldier will be ready for another day of battle with the Zionist occupiers. And a region rich in history, culture and bloodshed will continue to spiral away from a world advancing and modernizing.

Bush responds to McClellan

Not sure if you heard, but former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has a new book coming out in which he says he was given false information, which he unwittingly passed on. McClellan blames 5 top White House officials, including the president and vice president, for allowing him to brief the press using lies.

During the CIA leak investigation, McClellan said that White House officials, including Karl Rove, were not involved in the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame. They were.

The woman now in McClellan's old job, Dana Perino, said President Bush "has not and would not knowingly pass false information."

I knew this would happen (before I didn't)

If you needed any more proof that I don't know what I'm talking about, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg has hired a foreign policy expert, who is briefing him on international affairs. The expert, Nancy Soderberg, was US Ambassador to the UN, a Clinton foreign policy adviser, and has been described as "Bloomberg's Condi."

This is the strongest indication that he'll run for president next year.

I've already flip flopped on this issue, so I'll stay quiet on it

Supreme Court to Decide 2nd Amendment

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

For the first time in 70 years, the US Supreme Court will rule on the 2nd Amendment, it was announced yesterday. The justices will hear a case on Washington DC's 31 year old ban of handguns in private residences.

A wealthy libertarian lawyer recruited a plaintiff and financed the suit, which was successful in the DC court of appeals. The plaintiff is a security guard who carries a gun at work, and wants to keep it at home for protection. Under DC law, he is unable to do so.

At issue is whether the Second Amendment, quoted above, grants an individual right to arm, or if that right is tied to the formation of a militia. To me, the word militia is in the same sentence, so...

The court has shifted conservative over the past 7 years, so I would expect the DC law to be struck down.

Also of note, this will spark the gun- control debate in the presidential race, and it will be interesting to see how Rudy Giuliani handles it. Giuliani was a staunch gun control advocate as NYC mayor, but has distinguished that stance (rightly so, I think) from hunter's rights, and gun control in less dangerous situations.

However, this is Washington, DC we're talking about. One of America's most dangerous and crime- ridden cities. If Giuliani is consistent (honest, really) he'd probably be in favor of DC's restrictive law.

This is going to be interesting.

Rudy Ad

I've been doing a lot of Rudy stuff recently, I don't really know why. Here's his new ad:

9/11 Chairman endorses... McCain?

In a certain blow to the Rudy Giuliani campaign, Former NJ Governor and 9/11 Commission co-chair Tom Kean will endorse John McCain for president today in Boston.

Giuliani has formed his campaign based in large part on his leadership in New York City after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He was originally a member of the 9/11 commission but was removed for poor attendance.

In rebuttal, the Giuliani campaign released a statement of endorsement from New Jersey state senator (and former Senate candidate) Tom Kean Jr., who is, as you might have guessed, Tom Sr.'s son.

“Rudy Giuliani is the proven leader New Jerseyans want as our next President,'’ the younger Kean wrote. “We have witnessed his leadership firsthand and know he will win New Jersey in both the primary and general elections.”

In related news, the group 9/11 Firefighters & Families will be holding a town hall at Dartmouth College. According to their press release:

“9/11 Firefighters & Families are deeply offended at how Rudolph Giuliani has exploited the 9/11 terrorist attack to weave a false myth that he is the only person with the credentials and experience to lead the nation as our next president. They plan to set the record straight.”

If Giuliani gets the nom, expect big things from that group.

Meanwhile, this is a quiet victory for McCain, whose campaign continues to gain new life.

Political Ad of the Year

As I mentioned last month, Chuck Norris endorsed Mike Huckabee for president. Huckabee is not hesitating to take advantage of that star power. Below is his first television spot, and it's Chuck approved.

New Survey Says Men Prefer Less Successful Women

In a recent sociological study done in New York, a Columbia economics professor found that when choosing a potential spouse, men were often threatened by successful women. Men preferred to date successful women to a point, but on the whole, they did not usually choose a suitor that had a higher salary than they did. In contrast, women always preferred the more successful man.

I don't know exactly what to make of this. Except, perhaps men are just the more jealous sex of the two. Or maybe men still prefer to be the breadwinner and leave the women home to take care of the children. Either way, the point of the article was that Hillary Clinton might have a better chance of winning the primary and eventually the presidency if men weren't threatened by successful go-getter ladies.

I am interested to hear your reaction to this article. It seems like a plausible, yet surprising result to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/14dowd.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Maureen%20Dowd&oref=slogin

WSJ: Affluent Voters Switch Brands

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece today on the shifting voting patterns of the wealthy. The Journal traveled to traditional- Republican- turned- swing state, Colorado, and spoke with people who have altered their allegiance in favor of Democrats.

Take James Kelly, an executive at the $7B firm Vistar, who supports Barack Obama. For all the Democrats' talk about rolling back the Bush tax cuts on top wage earners, Mr. Kelly still writes big checks to Democrats.

From the article:

"The Democratic Party stands more for creating equal opportunity," says Mr. Kelley. He says the party "speaks more to me on issues of the environment, and even more to me on national security," while he criticizes Republican stands on "so-called moral issues" such as gay marriage.

As for proposals by Democratic congressional leaders and presidential contenders to raise taxes on high earners, Mr. Kelley says: "The pocketbook, the taxes, that's issue 11. And the balance has swayed so far in [favor of] the 10 other things."

It's a pattern that has developed nationally over the last four years. In 2004, voters making at least six-figures favored President Bush 58% to 41% over Democrat John Kerry. During last year's Congressional races the margin was cut to 51% to 47%. According to a new Wall Street Journal- NBC News poll, "Americans earning more than $100,000 want Democrats to win the White House next year by 48% to 41%, and want Democrats to win control of Congress by 45% to 42%."

And don't think that shift hasn't already been felt in the '08 fund-raising race, where the top 5 Dems have raised $242M to their conservative counterparts' $167M.

In my opinion, the shift seems to be the product of the deep division the Republican party has dealt with post- Reagan, between social and fiscal conservatives. The uneasy truce between the two appears to have faded, and we now see the fallout. The social conservatives are having a hard time backing a candidate like Rudy Giuliani, and the fiscal conservatives are so turned off by the party's recent priorities that they've defected.

The old adage says that people will always vote their pocketbooks, but it seems that, like much of the traditional wisdom in this election cycle, has undergone a profound change.

Post Game Spin

After sitting down in front of my set for a few hours tonight hoping to watch a spirited debate, a few thoughts come to mind and I wonder if anyone out there shares them. Before I begin I would preface my comments by saying to this point I was an Edwards backer, but his performance of late has left me wondering about his ability to turn his campaign around so I now consider myself to have a "soft verbal" commitment to his campaign.

I was really looking forward to this debate. After the last MSNBC debate i thought the field had gotten closer and the media was doing a better job of refraining from a Clinton love fest and actually analyzing the candidates and their performance. I will not speculate here about who won the debate, I think both Clinton and Obama had good showings, and even "my boy" Edwards said some important things although he didnt get much facetime. But I will talk about who lost this debate. CNN and Wolf Blitzer. How AWFUL was their perfromance tonight? Oh let me count the ways.

1) Rules are ok, they are the reason debates tend to be organized and the moderato's bias is minimized. How many times did I count Wolf (I love Hillary ) Blitzer cut off Edwards or Obama when they were criticizing Clinton? Just about every single time. Some conspiracy theorists out there argued that he was trying to break up anti-Hillary sound bites. I just think he realized there was a time limit when he was hearing things he didnt like. Further, every time he addressed Hillary he began the sentence by saying "Hillary you have beeen criticized for...". First off, stop making her the victim, secondly this is a debate, ask her about issues, not about how she feels about being beat up on. I agreed with Hillary tonite when she said "They arent attacking me because I am a woman, they are attacking because I am in the lead". So lets move on and discuss issues.

2) CNN, nice touch with the undecided voter pool in the front, but next time actually let them participate instead of giving them questions to read for Wolf. Seriously though, those people were struggling to pronounce the words in the questions they were asking. Let them ask the questions they want, I know they may not sound good or capture the answer you would like the candidates to address, but wasn't that segment really suppossed to be about them? Maybe not. Also, as a laws student I appreciated the question about the Supreme Court Justices, but Wolf Blitzer did the same thing the abortion groups (either pro or con) have done for the last 30 years (if not more). He Hijacked the position of Supreme Court Justice and boiled it down to 1 issue, abortion. Abortion is an important issue, but i am pretty sure the young lady asked about what would make up an ideal justice, not whether they were for or agaist abortion. The Permanent link between the two, the judiciary and abortion rights is tired. Call me a West Wing ideallist on this one, but will we ever consider jsutices on anything other than their thoughts on Roe v. Wade? Wolf even tried to ask the audience memeber whether she wanted the candidates to answer her questions or Wolf's, to which she answered her own, haha take that Wolfy.

3) And finally, because its bedtime more than because I am not still dissapointed by this debate, can we please get some post game analysist that did not work for the Clinton presidency. I know Bill was in office for a long time, but there have to be high profile Democrats out there that can do post game analysis who dont owe the Clintons for prior appointments (looking at you here Gergen and the Ragin' Cajun). The debate was defintiely the Hillary and Barack show, but their analysis that claims that Hillary took the boys to school is biased and flat wrong.

4) And really CNN, you ended on a question about diamonds or pearls? Ugh.

At this point some of you probably think I hate Hillary Clinton. I dont. I actually think she would be a great candidate and is probably our (read Democrats) best chance to win in November, but what I cant stand is the love fest. Be objective, isnt that what the press is suppossed to be about? I thought one of the most important moments of the debate was when Obama made the comment about the middle class not being 6% of the population. The crowd went crazy and Hillary looked stunned. But after a full hour of post game spin that moment wasnt mentioned once. (although i did take a brief bathroom break, but you get the point). MSNBC had done some of the same early on, but as the race got closer they got their act together. CNN let me down tonite and I wonder if anyone else out here noticed any of the same things?

Bill Loves his Burgers... Impressive Clinton Ad

The Clinton campaign must have a top marketing firm working their ads, because this is pretty damn good.

Hillary pokes fun at herself and her husband, and gets a charming hand from the people of Iowa. Not bad.

This video is off, the sound doesn't start until about 10 seconds in. So check the link here to see a corrected version.