Jeff's reply to the first post... 

Don't even get me started on that sit down session.  I thought the question posed to Obama by Joe Johns on whether he agrees with Toni Morrison that "Bill Clinton was the first black president" was absurd?  Why does that Johns think that's a relevant question, and what is the humor in that?  Obama should have either deflected that question to Edwards, who shares Clinton's southern-white-male-roots and asked Edwards if he thinks that if he won, he might become the second black president, or simply questioned the integrity of that question. 

 Now, I know everyone has said that I was crazy for saying that Obama should pick Kucinich as his running mate if he wins, but, he's shown signs of becoming too centrist of late and that will either alienate or confuse some of his supporters.  He and his campaign folks need to realize that in order to win the democratic ticket, he needs to shore up the left, workers, and americans who are desperately fighting to stave off poverty.  He can not do that by swapping barbs with the Clintons, and chasing after the "black vote."  Why can't his people arrange a photo-op with Deval Patrick, Cory Booker and the other notable black officials who've supported his campaign, and let him simply say:

        On the issue of the black vote, first there is no singular black vote.  On the recent spate of black celebrities and         elected officials coming forward on behalf of the Clinton campaign to challenge my record, I think this is great             because it shows the plurality of black opinions, but I am now way threatened by their assertions or feel that they         represent the majority of African American voters.  If I am correct, we each have one vote, so whether you're             Robert Johnson or Oprah Winfrey you have one vote.  Why should we be led to believe that Mr. Johnson's and Ms.         Winfrey's interests are in accordance with the single mother in SC trying to raise a family of four, of that worker         in Detroit wondering how he's going to tell his family that he just lost his job.  We each have one vote, that's               what Martin Luther King Jr. and Fannie Lou Hamer fought for and that's what I'm encouraging people to do, cast            your own vote. 

That said, another great speech will not cure his debate ailments.  This blogger suggests that he needs a historian/teacher and I couldn't agree more.  He's taking on a Sisyphean mission if he thinks he can untangle a Reagan quote.  Where's the charm?  What's so wrong at saying, "it appears as if my comments have been misconstrued, and while I have a sense why, but my mission was not to level praise on Reagan or denounce former President Clinton, but to show the nature of an impact a President can have." 

 Ok, I'm still avoiding the elephant in the room, John Edwards really brought it on Monday.  He's in third place, with nothing to lose at this point, and he's going to go all out.  A friend asked me after the debate whether a quick exit by Edwards will help Obama?  Two weeks ago I would have said yes, but unless Obama starts picking up on some of Edwards's talking points, he'd struggle getting the endorsement of Edwards supporters. 

New Hampshire showed us something and that's that Clinton can win the nomination with the status quo.  She does not have to be a consensus candidate, but just maintain her current numbers.  Nothing has happened over the last two weeks that suggests there will be a turn, and there can only be a shift if the tenor and rhetoric of the campaign switches.    

F