Lats see my prediction for 08.

45% of Americans won't vote, and nobody will wonder why.

YES: "mudslinging... right out of the Republican playbook.'' THAT describes it.

There's little CONTENT, SUBSTANCE as long as people yell at each other.

Edwards has been his combative tort lawyer self and displayed no statesmanship whatsoever. Disappointing.

This is not the tort court, man!
Get over yourself! And show some interest in statesmanship for a change.

Doesn't the profile of Hillary look a bit like George Washington?

Does anyone even KNOW what mudslinging is? Has everyone collectively forgotten? It's when you dredge up personal information, such as affairs, one's religious preferences, private business deals, etc. Calling people out over their record is NOT mudslinging by any modern sense of the word.

This is why I feel the Clintons are being massive hypocrites over this. They know firsthand what mudslinging is. They know the definition of it. And yet, they don't when it's convenient for them. Everyone wants Edwards and Obama to run a more aggressive campaign because we all want to have a CHOICE, and not a mandate. And yet, when they do just that, they get attacked for "mudslinging?"

This isn't mudslinging, and the Clintons are hypocrites for doing so. Calling them as they are isn't "advertising" for the GOP...because as far as I know, not ALL of us have signed on to be Clinton backers. If some in the party want to drop mandates on us, then what they're going to do is disillusion the party before the election. It's best to allow for competition, because forcing a choice down people's throats is WRONG and not the Democratic way.

Here's a novel idea:

The Dem candidates fell hook line and sinker for the instigation and goading of MSM that they mix it up more, get into a fist fight, kind of like a school yard brawl. They were dissatisfied with the collegial tone of the early Democratic campaign and debates. Way too civil and intellectual, you know?? "Fight, fight!"...Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, et.al. screamed. And what happened? Obama and Edwards dutifully took the bait and turned on Hillary. Let them not forget who the adversary is -- Bush and the Rethuglicans. When will gullible Democrats start thinking for themselves, get in touch with their base, and for heaven's sake STOP being led around by the nose by the MSM or the Rethuglicans?? The audience booed Edwards & Obama at the Nevada debate for this very simple reason: the public wants to hear a discussion & real debate of the relative POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES OF THE DAY between the candidates so that we can make an informed choice among them. We DON'T want intramural bloodletting. What a novel idea! Is it too much to ask that both the pols and the MSM STOP underestimating our intelligence?????

We ought not to muddle the difference between mudslinging and debate. The root of "debate," from Latin "de-battere," "to beat or knock down," denotes something less gentlemanly than the polite exchange of opposing views, whereas, mudslinging involves unjust insults or accusations aimed at defamation.

Hence, the forum for debate is more suited to a boxing ring and a good fight -- as correctly noted by the press's ubiquitous pugilisms -- than Hillary's "kitchen," where, at home on the range, she slings al dente tidbits to see what will stick. Had her "kitchen" kitsch come from the men, it surely would have been construed as a sexist slur and mudslinging.

To muddy-up the punchy jabs of Obama or Edwards and call them mudslingers is plain old mudslinging. As Hillary -- lobby suffragan -- knows: slings and arrows an outrageous fortune make. She wants in the boxing ring, but scolds the boys to stay out of the kitchen.

The worst aspect of this whole thing is not even being covered: No one in the press or any of the candidates (except Kucinich) is talking about a comprehensive middle eastern peace plan and the actions they would take to implement it.

The Iraq Study group, the 9/11 commision, former President Carter, The acedemic dean of harvard, many CIA analysts, almost the ENTIRE UN (meaning almost the ENTIRE world), and every middle east ally that we have all contend that the Israeli settlements progran and the occupation that protect it and help it grow, are the primary catlyst of middle eastern terror, and played a significant role in inspiring 9/11.

How is it possible that this issue goes COMPLETELY undiscussed and unquestioned? In hillarys case, the answer is obvious. She is a huge recipient and supporter of AIPAC, which is the voice of the Israels EXTREME right wing,
a group which does not represent most Israelis nor most Jewish Americans. It does, however, support the settlements, the occupation, and a US war against Iran.

In fact, two of its top officials will soon stand trial for espionage agaisnt the US for illegally receiving US classifed intel on Iran with the intent ot using it to help start a war agaisnt Iran. The US government official that gave the the illegal documents is already serving 12 years in federal prison for his part.

regardless, Hillary still takes money from AIPAC, Still speaks at their meetings, and still takes marching orders from them, such as helping to foment ware with Iraq, Iran, and supporting the totally avoidable, pointless war with Lebanon.

Edwards is right, these questions are nothing, but the real questions ought to be thrown at all of these candidates, because almost all of them still take money from AIPAC.

If you LIVE in the mud like Edwards does, you will sling some once in a while.

Despite the fact that Iraq and U.S. officials have made water projects among their top priorities, the percentage of Iraqis without access to decent water supplies has risen from 50 percent to 70 percent since the start of the U.S.-led war, according to an analysis by Oxfam International last summer. The portion of Iraqis lacking decent sanitation was even worse -- 80 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071118/wl_mcclatchy/20071118bciraqwater_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop_1

Now, though, some U.S. officials think they're about to make progress.

Yeah, uh-huh...snore.

I am out of this corrupted party. Forgedda bout it. This is Hoyer INTERFERING with the democratic process by proclaiming a prejudice for one candidate over another. Screw it. I am out of this corrupted and traitorish party..

i was never able to grasp the notion that whomever wins iowa, a state with less that 3 million people, is the candidate best positioned to take the party nomination. do those corn farmers really have that much influence? i say move the first primary to california, population 37 million extremely politically diverse people, and let's really stick our toe into the water and see what's cooking.

but iowa and new hampshire. pshaw. you only hear of them during the primary season then it's back to corn and maple syrup for those folks.

The worst aspect of this whole thing is not even being covered: No one in the press or any of the candidates (except Kucinich) is talking about a comprehensive middle eastern peace plan and the actions they would take to implement it.

The Iraq Study group, the 9/11 commision, former President Carter, The acedemic dean of harvard, many CIA analysts, almost the ENTIRE UN (meaning almost the ENTIRE world), and every middle east ally that we have all contend that the Israeli settlements progran and the occupation that protect it and help it grow, are the primary catlyst of middle eastern terror, and played a significant role in inspiring 9/11.

How is it possible that this issue goes COMPLETELY undiscussed and unquestioned? In hillarys case, the answer is obvious. She is a huge recipient and supporter of AIPAC, which is the voice of the Israels EXTREME right wing,
a group which does not represent most Israelis nor most Jewish Americans. It does, however, support the settlements, the occupation, and a US war against Iran.

In fact, two of its top officials will soon stand trial for espionage agaisnt the US for illegally receiving US classifed intel on Iran with the intent ot using it to help start a war agaisnt Iran. The US government official that gave the the illegal documents is already serving 12 years in federal prison for his part.

regardless, Hillary still takes money from AIPAC, Still speaks at their meetings, and still takes marching orders from them, such as helping to foment ware with Iraq, Iran, and supporting the totally avoidable, pointless war with Lebanon.

Edwards is right, these questions are nothing, but the real questions ought to be thrown at all of these candidates, because almost all of them still take money from AIPAC.

Hillary is actually using a tactic out of the Rove playbook, making false accusations and calling something something that it is not. Merely citing her record is not "mudslingi­ng"...unle­ss your record is dirty.

I did admire his slipping in a rather obscure world like Milquetoast.

I think he spent the prior evening seeing a revival of The Importance of Being Ernest.

:)

Methinks she doth protest too much. He could have mentioned her Wal-Mart past. How would that go with union members? If that's mudslinging, they'd have to hose down the White House after every press conference.