Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livestrong Forum

I must admit that I was a little skeptical about this forum.  Quite obviously, there is no candidate who thinks cancer is a good thing.  Everybody agrees that cancer is an awful disease and that our government should do more for prevention, treatment, research, etc.  So, when everybody agrees on the basics, I tend to keep my ears perked for excessive pandering to the audience.  It is not too hard for a Democratic candidate for President to look good when speaking about cancer issues to a group of people with a great degree of interest in defeating this disease.  

The Livestrong Forum exceeded my expectations.  There were over 1000 people in attendance at the U.S. Cellular Center in Cedar Rapids.  Both the Clinton and Edwards campaigns were clearly represented by a large number of the 1000 crowd members.  Candidates received three minutes for opening remarks followed by questions and answers around a table with Lance Armstrong and Chris Matthews.  

In speaking first, Senator Clinton pledged to double the budgets for the National Institute of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI), end insurance discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions, mandate that insurers pay for cancer screening, pay for programs to help smokers kick their habit, and commit the United States to a "war on cancer." With regard to the NIH and NCI, Senator Clinton essentially said that President Bill Clinton increased their budgets a great deal, and President George W. Bush has frozen or cut their budgets.  This refrain of "we need to spend more money on research" was used by all the candidates.  However, it was not really a crowd favorite.  It is not particularly creative, nor bold.  By the time Richardson, as the third speaker, said "we need to increase the NIH budget by 206%," he received only polite applause.  

Clinton's best moment came when she stated, "we must end the war against science led by the Bush Administration." When pressed further by Matthews, Clinton stated that the Bush Administration has opposed science by opposing stem-cell research, by muzzling government scientists, and by censuring science-content on government websites.  Hearing this from Senator Clinton was a pleasant surprise and I thought the crowd reacted quite favorably.

Unfortunately, just after criticizing the Bush Administration for allowing social conservatives to overrule scientists, Senator Clinton refused to support mandatory vaccination of girls with the HPV vaccine.  I do have to give Chris Matthews credit, because this question was very well placed.  Senator Clinton initially spoke about how the HPV vaccine has been 20-years in the making, it would prevent cervical cancer in women, and generally that it was a great thing.  However, in answering the follow-up question, she does not support requiring that girls be vaccinated because the vaccine is still "new." Fortunately for Senator Clinton, Lance Armstrong then bailed her out by shifting the focus of the conversation elsewhere.  

One other Clinton tidbit that I thought was notable: when Chris Matthews mentioned that Michael Moore, in his movie "Sicko," was critical of Senator Clinton for taking money from insurance and drug company lobbyists, Senator Clinton's initial reaction was to laugh.  Now, in my mind this has nothing to do with weather one thinks the specific criticism made by Michael Moore is either fair or accurate.  It has to do with the idea that when a person is criticized by Michael Moore, they can have one of two first reactions: take it seriously or laugh it off.  By laughing it off, arguably one is effectively saying, "Oh, it's just Michael Moore, nobody should take him seriously and neither do I."

Senator Edwards approached this issue of cancer, like many other issues, from a populist perspective.  He stated that universal healthcare is the foundation for any program to fight cancer.  He spoke about the need to increase funding for NIH and NCI because without sufficient grant money, many of our best young researchers leave for private industry (and that is a bad thing).  

Chris Matthews brought into the discussion the differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards on their approach to health care.  In what was Edwards' best line, he contrasted himself with Senator Clinton saying, "if we give insurance and drug companies a seat at the table, they'll eat up all the food." He stated that the entire insurance system is set up to deny benefits to policyholders.  It is almost like listening to attorney Rudy Baylor in John Grisham's "The Rainmaker;" an eloquent, Southern, trial attorney, making his case against the insurance companies on behalf of his client, in this case the American Public.

Another interesting moment came up when Matthews asked Senator Edwards about using embryos for research purposes.  Specifically, Mathews asked if Edwards would have any problem with using donated sperm and eggs to create embryos solely for the purpose of research?  Edwards responded, "I might." 

Governor Bill Richardson brought up a number of different issues that nobody else spoke to this morning.  Of course, he said many of the same things, "I support a `surge' on the war on cancer;""we need to more than double the NIH budget." Richardson, though, brought up the issue of mental health, of healthy lifestyles and the prevention of diabetes.  He brought the perspective of a Governor and made allusions to his work New Mexico trying to provide insurance to a larger and larger number of its residents instead of waiting for the federal government to take action.  Richardson was the only candidate to speak about requiring Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices on behalf of seniors.  He stated is support of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and of tying the salary increases to members of Congress to progress made on reducing the size of the federal deficit.  Lastly, he explained his support for a law legalizing the medical use of marijuana that was enacted during his tenure as Governor of New Mexico.  

All of these candidates gave a good performance this morning.  It really should not be too difficult to do so when the candidates and the audience agree on most of the issues to be discussed.  It might mean that tomorrow's Republican forum will be more interesting, let them explain their ideas on healthcare or NIH funding.  I won't be there, but it will be remarkable to force Republicans to speak, at length, about their ideas on cancer and other health-related matters.

On a personal note, after I left the forum I listened to a voice mail on my cell phone from my Mother.  My Aunt Norma, who is terminally ill from her battle with cancer, is apparently deteriorating rapidly.  So, I am off to the hospital in Marshalltown.  

Tags: cancer, Caucuses, Iowa, Livestrong (all tags)

Comments

54 Comments

Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Unfortunately, just after criticizing the Bush Administration for allowing social conservatives to overrule scientists, Senator Clinton refused to support mandatory vaccination of girls with the HPV vaccine.  I do have to give Chris Matthews credit, because this question was very well placed.  Senator Clinton initially spoke about how the HPV vaccine has been 20-years in the making, it would prevent cervical cancer in women, and generally that it was a great thing.  However, in answering the follow-up question, she does not support requiring that girls be vaccinated because the vaccine is still "new."  Fortunately for Senator Clinton, Lance Armstrong then bailed her out by shifting the focus of the conversation elsewhere.

Let's remember this next time someone claims she's in the pocket of big Pharma.

Merck has been relentlessly lobbying in my state (and others) for mandatory vaccination.

In my very blue state, voters put the kibosh on these plans by calling their reps, precisely because parents want more time for field testing, not because they're social conservatives (although some surely chimed in).

by dblhelix 2007-08-27 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

That's a very good point about Merck.

My wife is always telling me about how much we over-vaccinate in this country and how many of the vaccinations the typical baby receives simply aren't necessary.  I never really drew the Big Pharma connection before, although I guess it seems obvious.

It might be that mandatory HPV vaccines would be great public policy, but I'm hesitant simply because there seems to be this knee-jerk attitude out there that we should require vaccinations against everything.  I'm confident Hillary's hesitation on this issue has nothing to do with the crazy wingnuts who think HPV vaccinations will encourage girls to have sex.

by Steve M 2007-08-27 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

I went into more detail here.

by dblhelix 2007-08-27 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

I was like "what's up with giving me a 2?!" but then I saw we changed the rating system, hehe.

Thanks for the info.  It's very interesting, and at this rate, maybe someday I'll be 1/10 as informed about vaccinations as my wife.

by Steve M 2007-08-27 12:25PM | 0 recs
No good progressive should be for REQUIRED

vaccination of a NEW vaccine.  Period.

We decry Bush for his Orwellian bullshit, and yet we want a new vaccine requirement?

My sister's kid is autistic and had received a mercury-based vaccine.  I have no clue about whether it's related or not, but, if she could go back in time, she'd have avoided it.

I applaud Mrs. Clinton's response.

by jgarcia 2007-08-27 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: No good progressive should be for REQUIRED

She might have ended up with an autistic child who died of whooping cough.

There's no good reason to put mercury in vaccines, but there is also no good reason not to vaccinate your child with proven vaccines that, statistically speaking, prevent far more harm than they cause.

by DrFrankLives 2007-08-28 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Before I am convinced of Sen. Clinton's resistance to Big Pharma I would like to know the position of the other big Pharma companies on this issue.  This is a money maker for Merck and I have trouble with it being mandated this way - ie. the intense lobbying.  I want to know costs and profit margins as well as clinical trials and alternatives.

Not enough information right now to judge her approach.

And I think she did relatively well this morning, but the lobbyist question is the right one.  I think Edwards is on the mark.  If they were not a problem we would have a universal health care system by now.

by pioneer111 2007-08-27 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Sorry to hear about your mom , I hope it's nothing serious.

I watched the forum too and it was interesting since I wasn't expecting much.

You covered the bases well , so good write up.

P.S. Why in the world Should I be obliged to take Micheal Moore seriously , I haven't seen any of his movies . Of course this is not a question directed at any one.

by lori 2007-08-27 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Sorry I don't consider him as a hero . I don't even think much of him to be frank.

I have never seen any reason to consider him a hero.

by lori 2007-08-27 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Like you said - you've never seen any of his films -- so you have no opinion of him at all.

by David in Burbank 2007-08-27 01:09PM | 0 recs
I'm sure if he wasn't taking shots at her

There'd be no need to make light of him.

by Edgar08 2007-08-27 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Did you even read his comment?

He said his mother called about his aunt, whose condition is deteriorating.  

by Vox Populi 2007-08-27 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Sorry I meant his Aunt , my mistake.

Apologies to the diariest.

by lori 2007-08-27 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Perhaps you should actually do a little bit of research into Michael Moore and his opinions and credibility before criticising him by you know, actually WATCHING or READING something of his.

by KainIIIC 2007-08-27 12:56PM | 0 recs
If you haven't seen any of his movies

you aren't in a position really to ask why you shouldnt take him seriously are you? Why not check him out and find out. Maybe you might even learn something and be pleasantly surprised.

by okamichan13 2007-08-27 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re:

There seems to have been a somewhat controversial statement by Edwards in regards to stem cell research.  Any info on that?  I read that he was "unsure" about supporting creation of new cells for research (rather than existing ones,) but have not seen a transcript of the exact wording.  

by georgep 2007-08-27 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re:

Uh, no.  That's a verbatim quote from his campaign's press release issued before the forum.

You're the second Edwards supporter I've seen try to deflect questions about what he said at the forum with references to this press release.  I'm starting to think he must have said something pretty bad.

by Steve M 2007-08-27 11:58AM | 0 recs
"He must have said something bad"

Maybe instead of assuming you should find out? Or maybe watch the video for yourself?

You can see it all here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?us er=NCDem&p=r

by okamichan13 2007-08-27 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Qestion

I don't think anyone else was asked this.  But what was asked is (I'm paraphrasing) Would he have any trouble with 'designer embryos' being created for stem cell research.  His answer was "I might[have trouble with it], but I need more information."  

The issue is that there are many embryos that would be destroyed and could be used in stem cell research.  Bush only allow the current "lines" to be used.  Edwards and the other Democrats agree that any of the embryos that are available could be used.  However the idea of the 'designer' embryos is to create embryos for scientific purposes and research.  It is one step further on this issue.

Edwards did not say yes or no, but did say he had never considered the question before and would want time to think about it and its implications.  That I think is a prudent answer.  It was a question that caught me off guard too.

by pioneer111 2007-08-27 01:12PM | 0 recs
there certainly is a great deal of ethical debate

to be had on the subject of designer embryos for research. The current President cut off that debate completely with a half-assed and useless Federal policy that compromised on the ethics and failed on the science.  We need to have the debate - as we are dealing with fundamental issues of the role of science, of human power over life, and the public good vs. public morals.

That Edwards didn't answer that question with a yes or a no before having that debate and learning about it says more about Edwards than his detractors might want known. It says he's thoughtful and careful and willing to listen.

Imagine a President with those qualities.

by DrFrankLives 2007-08-28 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re:

From the Diary:

Another interesting moment came up when Matthews asked Senator Edwards about using embryos for research purposes.  Specifically, Mathews asked if Edwards would have any problem with using donated sperm and eggs to create embryos solely for the purpose of research?  Edwards responded, "I might."  

So he says he might have a problem with deliberately creating embryos for research (i.e destruction).

Of course this goes to the whole "when does life begin" debate, which this answer of Edwards carefully sidesteps, perhaps not unwisely.

by David in Burbank 2007-08-27 01:16PM | 0 recs
He's right

thats also a pretty open-ended question. "Research" can mean just about anything, could even refer to genetic design research. I would be wary of anyone who gave that question a blanket "yeah, sure" answer"

by okamichan13 2007-08-27 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the...

Who needs to be "bailed out" for opposing mandatory HPV vaccinations? HPV is an STD that leads to cancer, not cancer itself. The problem with mandating a new vaccine is that you are having the state decide for parents what they should do with the preteenage daughters. It's not like what we did with polio at all.

And anyway, there are less new, less risky HPV preventitives: condoms and being educated about sex.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-27 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the...

Clinton's position is right in line with the American Academy of Pediatrics:

But some medical experts say lawmakers are moving too fast in their efforts to vaccinate all school-age girls. The American Academy of Pediatrics, for instance, is urging a go-slow approach, with an initial focus on raising public awareness of HPV and more monitoring of the safety of the vaccine, which had minimal side effects in clinical trials but hasn't been observed in larger-scale rollouts.

"A lot of us are worried it's a little early to be pushing a mandated HPV vaccine," said Dr. Martin Myers, director of the National Network for Immunization Information. "It's not that I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this vaccine. I am. But many of us are concerned a mandate may be premature, and it's important for people to realize that this isn't as clear-cut as with some previous vaccines."

He added, "It's not the vaccine community pushing for this."

That the Merck lobbyists are pressuring state legislators added to the level of distrust here in MD. It didn't help that our senate majority leader is married to one of the Merck lobbyists.

A combination of factors:

1. Nervousness over premature rollout/lack of consensus in medical community

  1. Excessive lobbyist pressure
  2. Libertarian views (parental rights)
  3. Current difficulties in meeting mandatory vaccination requirements for public school registration, and
  4. social conservatism

all contributed to public pushback on the legislators to slow things down and focus on a public education program (the correct approach, IMO). The reality is that in this state with a 2-1 Dem registration advantage, the public trust isn't quite there yet.

It is disappointing to open up diary after diary with a cheap shot levied against Clinton -- in this case, implying that she has taken up with social conservatives. This issue is far more complex than that. Moreover, since the de facto position here is that (1) lobbyists are evil and (2) Clinton is in the pocket of big Pharma, I'm amazed at the cognitive dissonance.

BTW, bowiegeek, I'm not sympathetic in the long-run to the "parental rights" argument as long as there's an opt-out in place -- my opinion is that with consensus in the medical community along with public confidence, the vaccine should be mandatory (along with an increase in access to the pap test).

by dblhelix 2007-08-27 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the...

What I'd like to know is whether any of the other candidates said anything about the mandatory vaccination issue.  The diary doesn't make clear whether the question was actually posed to anyone but Hillary.

by Steve M 2007-08-27 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the...

Well, I can tell you what Richardson's reaction was:


New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) on April 6 vetoed an HPV vaccine mandate passed by his Legislature. "While everyone recognizes the benefits of this vaccine, there is insufficient time to educate parents, schools and health care providers. ...This vaccine will still be available to every young woman in New Mexico and covered by their health insurance," Richardson said in a statement.

 

by dblhelix 2007-08-27 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the...

I can definitely see how a vaccination mandate would definitely increase the number of pap tests, but I'm just especially worried about the implications to personal freedom (including the freedom of making ones own judgments). Education about the vaccine, its risks and its purpose is great. But requiring it by default just doesn't sit well with me. Requiring the medical provider to let the parent know about HPV risks and treatments would be fine. And requiring (if not already) publicly funded school sex ed programs to notify families about the vaccine and tests would be also great since many of the sex ed classes coincide with the age around which girls would need to get the vaccine. If a mandate does get instituted then yes, I agree an opt out would definitely need to be there.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-27 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the...

The hepatitis-B vaccination is required in 48-states. The disease is transmitted via sexual contact, needles or blood transfusions, but over time, the public has come to accept that the public health benefit outweighs issues like personal freedom or discomfort over sexually-communicable diseases.

What I'd really like to see is development of a HPV vaccine for boys as well as girls to obtain the benefits of herd immunity.


Many experts point to the history of rubella vaccination, which also benefits girls more and was initially only recommended for this group, as an example. Efforts against that disease only made inroads when the shot was recommended to everyone. Both sexes were more likely to get the vaccine. The herd immunity achieved also reduced the overall prevalence of the virus in the target population.

The problem with your approach is that if it is administered ad hoc, the likelihood of effectively battling the disease is low. On the other hand, provided the case has been made (safety for the individual, benefit for the public), I suspect you would consider relenting on personal freedom in lieu of the common good.

by dblhelix 2007-08-27 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the...

I think the problem here is that the vaccine is new and approved via the relaxed FDA standards. We have seen too many examples of new drugs that proved to be more dangerous than the conditions they treated. So we have qualms about mandating a vaccine whose dangers are basically unknown. After enough volunteers have taken the vaccine for say five or ten years, THEN we can talk about mandatory vaccination.

by antiHyde 2007-08-27 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the...

I 100% agree, antiHyde, that's the safety aspect.

by dblhelix 2007-08-27 03:57PM | 0 recs
Oh Man

You can't laugh off a shot Michael Moore takes at you without laughing off his entire body of work.

I'll laugh that off.

LOL!

by Edgar08 2007-08-27 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

By laughing it off, arguably one is effectively saying, "Oh, it's just Michael Moore, nobody should take him seriously and neither do I."

This seems like a really, really weird conclusion to draw.

by Steve M 2007-08-27 11:58AM | 0 recs
nice coverage

Thanks for the write-up and sounds like a fair coverage of all candidates. I generally agree this is sort of a friendly audience, a tea party ...

Two little things I have to digress
You said...


Clinton's best moment came when she stated, "we must end the war against science led by the Bush Administration."  When pressed further by Matthews, Clinton stated that the Bush Administration has opposed science by opposing stem-cell research, by muzzling government scientists, and by censuring science-content on government websites.  Hearing this from Senator Clinton was a pleasant surprise

Frankly I'm a bit surprised that you're suprised. Senator Clinton has been touting these same lines quite a bit in the past... She really isn't some sort of 'neo-con' caricatured by some netroots activists...

Regarding Michael Moore, I don't think you have read too much into Clinton's reaction. Hillary has laughed a lot in reaction to lots of critisim during the previous debates, whether it's from Edwards, Obama or others. I'm not sure what's wrong with that...

by areyouready 2007-08-27 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: nice coverage

I think...

by areyouready 2007-08-27 12:10PM | 0 recs
You do realize

that as Firt Lady, Hillary lead an enormous effort in childhood vacinations?

by bookgrl 2007-08-27 12:43PM | 0 recs
"First Lady". My key board

is screwed up today.  Sorry.

by bookgrl 2007-08-27 12:47PM | 0 recs
I wouldn't tout this if I were you

because around 1996, the government was alerted to serious problems related to mercury in vaccines (in the form of the preservative thimerosol).

So as not to set off a panic that would decrease vaccination rates (and perhaps also to protect PhRMA from liability lawsuits), the Clinton administration did NOTHING to mandate removal of mercury from vaccines or to warn the public.

Although I don't think mercury is the sole cause of the autism epidemic, and I don't think vaccines are the sole source of mercury poisoning, the evidence is pretty strong that there is a link between babies receiving ever more vaccines, clustered together, containing mercury, and autism rates that rose to 1 in 150.

The federal government should have moved quickly to ban thimerosol from vaccines.

Instead, they kept pushing for more and more vaccines.

Our children are vaccinated, but I made sure 1) that they didn't get ANY shots with mercury, and 2) that my second son didn't get clusters of shots at the same time (I wasn't aware of the risk factors related to this when my first was born).

I don't think Hillary has a lot to brag about regarding the Clinton administration's vaccine policy.

I've got friends who are moms of autistic children, and believe me, if Hillary starts talking about this issue, she will lose them instantly. This is a very big issue with moms of young kids.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-27 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't tout this if I were you

okay, so she's damned if she does (by you) and damned if she doesn't (by the diarist).

did it EVER occur to you that perhaps the mercury issue changed her mind.  i have a family member who is autistic (mentioned upthread) and no one knew it at the time.  However, I'm sure you will say that HILLARY knew it and should get slammed for it.

by jgarcia 2007-08-27 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't tout this if I were you

There is simply no conclusive evidence that mercury in vaccines causes autism. In fact, most studies that were done in England have been discredited. While England has allowed parents to opt out of MMR vaccines, the rate of MMR infection has significantly increased over there.

by PhillyGuy 2007-08-27 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't tout this if I were you

I disagree.  I think most think the vaccine program was successful.  The notion that mercury causes autism is highly debateable.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-27 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson

I like your comment here: "making his case against the insurance companies on behalf of his client, in this case the American Public."

I think Edwards is making his case on a lot of issues "on behalf of his client, in this case the American Public."

by TomP 2007-08-27 12:56PM | 0 recs
Obama

I do think it is fair to point out that Obama did not care enough about a discussion of cancer issues to show up for this important forum in the first caucus state of Iowa.

by hwc 2007-08-27 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Obama's mom died of cancer in 1995. Real classy.

by DPW 2007-08-27 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

nasty comment.  but I'll add that I think Obama is writing off Iowa.

by jgarcia 2007-08-27 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

How is it nasty. It's reality. Lance Armstrong chided Republican candidates for not showing up the forum in Iowa. The reality is that Obama didn't bother showing up either.

I think it's important that progressive Democrats give credit to our candidates, like Clinton and Edwards, who care enough to show up at important forums such as this. They have busy schedules, too, but they demonstrate their commitment to the fight against cancer by addressing these issues at major forums such as this.

by hwc 2007-08-27 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Obama has no events scheduled today. Tomorrow he attends a private fundraiser at the home of the owners of Sheridan Broadcasting on Nantucket Island.

So, basically, while Clinton and Edwards are addressing one of the most important health care issues, Obama is hangin' out at the beach.

I think that's worth noting.

by hwc 2007-08-27 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

well, you have a point if he blew it off and did not have prior scheduled campaign events.  it's a monday during the day in august, but with this sooner than normal primary schedule, i think it was a mistake for him to skip it.

but i do think he's written it off.

by jgarcia 2007-08-27 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

thAT IS CRAZY hE hAS GOOD POLL NUMBERS IN ia SO IT IS ABSURD TO SAY HE IS BLOWING Off IA

by BDM 2007-08-27 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I believe he was in New Orleans today. "Good Morning America" interviewed him from there this morning.

He's not hanging out at the beach.

by DPW 2007-08-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
That is a nasty comment

but mabye not that surprising considering the source.

Of course Obama cares about cancer. Strategically though its certainly not the best move, especially since this forum took place in Iowa and will get a lot of press there.

by okamichan13 2007-08-27 05:35PM | 0 recs
any video link?

Can somebody provide video link? Thanks.

by areyouready 2007-08-27 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: national security

Hillary

She is no JFK. JFK did not listen to his military advisors during the cuban missle crisis for they wanted to bomb and invade Cuba, If we Had followed their advice CUba would have launched an intermediate mussle against the US.

Thank god Hillary was not in charge

by BDM 2007-08-27 03:43PM | 0 recs
For John Edwards

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?us er=NCDem&p=r

thats what you are looking for right? :)

by okamichan13 2007-08-27 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson at the Livest

Clinton was careful to avoid actually discussing her New War though she used the forum to suck up and give her double the budget speech. Yippie!

Frankly I want to know about HILLARY'S NEW WAR. I don't want to hear about anything else. Screw changing the subject.

by DoIT 2007-08-27 05:36PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads