Matthews: if you had a piece of paper in front of you right now who would you vote for President in 2008 Hillary Clinton or Mark Warner?

Miller: Mark Warner

Webb: I'm still undecided.

the debate will be re broadcast tonight 7pm and there should be a transcript on the shows website at msnbc.com soon.

Smart move on his part.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

anyone know why Miller was shaking? is it a medical condition or something?

Jim Webb seemed thoughtful, and cool and collected.  His answers were measured, and he smiled and laughed.  He was good.

I think for people that watch the show without knowing much about the candidates will definitely not look at either candidate as super liberal or extreme in any way (which can be good or bad), and I definitely think the military background vs the tech background is a win for Webb.  Miller looked pretty terrible answering questions about the war, and he nervously called Tweety sir, while Jim called him Chris.

However, Tweety called Webb out for giving an easy answer when they talked about immigration.  But I thought Jim made a good point, and he included a lot of Virginians into his train of thought when he did it.  It IS different to punish a woman who hires an immigrant cleaning lady (to help out because mom has 2 jobs) in the same manner as someone who hires 400 illegals and basks in the tax free fun.

I mean, point is, I am biased, of course, but I do think for VIRGINIA this was a clear win for Webb.  I am GLAD he didn't endorse anyone for president yet as we have very few people actually admitting that they were running.

You've always been pro-Miller. Check his comments. The spinmeisters at work. haha.

Hey, both sides spin. What the heck.

Remember Webb doesn't owe Warner.  Warner owes Webb.  Warner backed Miller early. Miller's job was lose gracefully and pay some Warner staffers until the 2008 election started up next January.  Only after a close look was it realized that Miller was toxic (Miller's Zogby negatives are off the Richter scale). Warner's association with Miller in a long campaign was going to tarnish his Presidential run.

Miller has basically never defended his Cesar Chavez union busting, H-1B, women and black labor participation failures, outsourcing and Diebold.  Every single issue here is a loser in Democratic primaries and Warner didn't want to be tied to a them.

The DSCC wisely leaned on Warner to go neutral.  Warner gracioulsly (and selfservingly) agreed.  Warner untied himself from a "high tech" Jack Abramoff. 

Wise move. Mark: you saved your ass.  Don't worry, Senator Webb will back you next year!

This is why I never hit "0-troll".  If I disagree with an idea in a post I don't ussually rate.  I usually only rate a comment that I really agree with (giving a 4) or one that has rude personal attacks and name-calling (I give those a 1).  If everyone, on every political blog, rated every comment as they saw it (with "0-troll" omitted) we could get a good idea of the spirit of the weblog, without having any censorship.  That could be useful.

However, given the choice between the current RK troll rating system and having no system, I would prefer the latter. 
I will cry no tears if Lowell gets rid of the whole troll system tomorrow.

I think Jim dyes his hair, but I cannot be sure.

Jim had better, MORE VIRGINIAN, answers.  Miller looks canned. 

Webb said that getting Al Zarqari is good tactically, has little impact strategically.

We know Webb spoke out against the war early.  Miller said he believed Colin Powell who was misled by the President.  Matthews asked him was it wrong to go in Iraq, and he said that we were told there were WMD's and it was a lie.

Miller was acting a little defensive on this topic and Matthews asked him if he had access to history books.  Miller said he was briefed by people in the State Department who had clearances and told him that Iraq had WMDs.

Civil unions - they both support.  Both are against the amendment.

On DADT Webb said that the military is a different environment and he thinks it needs to remain intact at this point.  Miller says it should be removed.

In one way, I wish Matthews had asked what were their thoughts on our military now, but in fairness, that would have been skewing an advantage to Webb.

Should Hillary run for President?  Webb said that if she wants to run, she certainly should run, but it is too early to endorse.

Miller repeated the part about if she wants to she should, but he supports Mark Warner.

Matthews went back to Webb and tried to push a choice between Hillary and Warner, and Webb said I'm undecided.  Guess you had to see that part, because Matthews was trying to force his hand a bit.

My opinion is that Miller was so sidelined in that area during this "debate."  I don't know if that was part of his problem with the twitching and so on.  And it is also my opinion that Matthews knew he was supposed to be objective, and he did put some effort into not being too omega in Webb's presence. 

Miller showed very poorly, that's all there is to it.

As usual, Matthews doesn't let anyone talk. Webb couldn't answer fast enough to please him. But Miller had no answer to the Iraq morass, and as much as he tried to wiggle out of it, Matthews pinned him down.

BTW, yet another shrill, screaming, and redundant Miller "Webb's a Republican" flyer in the neighborhood today. A neighbor of mine assumed it was from Allen, and it made her even more determined to vote for Webb. I wonder if other dems out there are getting the same message? 

Oh, and Miller looking and sounding better? My goodness, you'd have to be ... well I was going to say something very undemocratic, but if someone were next to me and said that I'd fall off my barstool then take them home cause they'd had too much. 

I would just point out that you shouldn't be electing someone only because they are good at debate.  When you cast your vote ask yourself "who will make the best decisions for my family?"

One thing just about all of us have in common is that we work for a living.  Miller is a direct threat to working Americans.  So what do you value more?  The rights of soldiers to proclaim they are homosexuals or the ability for working Americans to keep good paying jobs?

I am personally OK with anyone in the military coming out of the closet publicly - I served in the military and supported their rights even then.  But at the end of the day my children need their dad to provide for them.  So I pick jobs over "don't ask don't tell".  It is as simple as that for me. 

Do you trust Harris Miller or Jim Webb to make the best decisions for your family?  That is the question I ask each of you to take to the polls next week.

Don't worry, Miller is still permanently banned from my Christmas list ;-)  Oh, and not because he is Jewish.  Because he is an ###.  Wouldn't want his people to come after me like they did that poor cartoonist kid. 

I don't think Miller being Jewish even crossed that supporter's mind for the record.  Never crossed mine - in fact not once during the years I have hated Harris Miller has that crossed my mind.  I don't need BS reasons to hate Miller when I have perfectly good reasons to hate him.

Miller could have the straightest nose on earth, sandy blond hair, and bright blue eyes.  If he turned out the same and lead the ITAA in the destruction of American jobs I would still hate him.

-Webb supporter since November 2005

Why do I need more information?  The article is clear.  They get a professor to insenuate the cartoon is anti-semitism:

###
"That doesn't look so good. There's no question to me that's replete with anti-Semitic stereotypes," said Mark Feldstein, an associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University. "I'm not someone who readily cries anti-Semitism, but I think it's hard to look at this and not see a number of anti-Semitic stereotypes plugged into this ad, from the hook nose to the 'antichrist' to the money-grubbing character."
###

They go on the suggest this is similar to German propoganda.  In effect, suggesting we are Nazis.  WTF???

###
Bruce Newman, a professor of marketing at DePaul University and editor of the Journal of Political Marketing, said it reminded him of 1930s German propaganda, where the Jewish character was subtly made out to be the thieving villain.
###

I doubt this cartoonist has ever in his life seen nazi propoganda against Jews.  This is a real smear-job on him and the Webb campaign as well.

Was the flyer an attack on Miller?  Sure, in my view a well deserved attack.  Was it anti-semetic?  Absolutely NOT and to suggest that is not only insane, but in my view borders on libel.  I think this person who drew it, and fortunately they withheld his name, was a victim here.

So I think I am very well informed on this.  This news outlet decided to help smear Webb by pulling the race card and manufacturing an issue where one did not exist.

At the very end of the story do they quote Smolen, another professor on the topic:

###
"I'm completely satisfied with the Webb campaign's recognition that this in fact, had it gone out, could've been a damaging situation and that in the future they're going to make sure this doesn't happen again," Smolen said. "I don't think it was a deliberate smear."
###

In short for everyone taking notes, you shouldn't ever do this again in a political campaign.  Not because it is anti-semitism, but because some far left liberal nut-jobs will claim it is.

Am I still not informed?  And if so please do explain.

I believe that argument is silly.  From what I have heard the person who drew the cartoon TRACED an actual image of Miller.  If you go to the article about this issue, you will know what I am talking about.

We have called Miller the Anti-Christ to IT workers for a long time - and it has nothing to do with his faith.  It is simply a way of saying that Miller has a horrible track record against IT workers.

The fact that you read offense into what I wrote - my displeasure that people pull the race card every chance they get - makes me wonder if I am surrounded my more liberal nut jobs. 

Don't get me wrong - I am a moderate liberal.  But the far left is percieved as plain wackos to most of America and frankly the reason this party is in trouble. 

The cartoonist also portrayed Jim having big hands and red hair.  Next thing you know a nut-job far left liberal Irish will be offended.  "Are you trying to say all Irish have red hair?"

And btw, I am offended by the white guy of apparent English ancestry in the background.  The liberal nut in me wonders - do we all have pointy noses???  And I looked in the mirror.  It is true.  My nose is pointy.  Hence, I am offended - I was stereotyped.  Welcome to the mind of someone way out in FAR left-field.

I think the nut-job FAR left winger thing to do would be drawing stick-men.  But that would irritate the anorexic people.

Don't you see the madness in this?  If not, all I can say is wow.  The fact that you are "offended" shows just how ungenuine you are. 

I am offended that idiots pull the race card needlessly and for political gain, but ignore what is going on in parts of Africa.  The SLAUGHTER of millions over race and religion.  If you want to get all mooshy over someone drawing Miller's nose, get your behind to Africa and count bodies!!!  Not a single one of you has the right to pull the race card until you make that one of your top political priorities.

I never dreamed Miller was Jewish for a long time.  Why?  Because I think of Harris as a hyper-Anglo name, e.g., William Harris of Crixie.  Do most people think that?  I don't know, but I doubt it.  But it's an obscure bit of information that informed my conclusion.  A conclusion that was incorrect.

Apparently that professor works closely with Nazi cartoons from the 1930's that deliberately caricatured Jews in an extremely negative light.  So he does historical work in a very specialized area, and his reaction to the Miller cartoon would be impacted by information that most of us don't know about.  That's a normal reaction on his part.  His mistake is to project it onto the world, just like it would be a mistake if I berated everyone about Crixie.

I think it is important to acknowledge that as fact first.  That's all.  I did see some of those Nazi cartoons in a book last year, but I didn't make the connection at all to the current cartoon, probably because it is Harris Miller personified.  When I read what the professor said about the Miller cartoon, I thought it was just another case of academic myopia.  It annoys me when people make a living off of specialized knowledge and then turn sniffy when everyone else doesn't share that knowledge.

But now the problems begin.  The professor doesn't inform people of his special knowledge.  He uses it and beats us over the head with it.  He politicizes it.  He tries to portray a cartoon image of Miller as anti-semitic and that anyone who doesn't know about cartoons of the 1930's as dumb.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll agree that that is at the very least divisive.

Oh, why understate. Miller's campaign has been riddled with bigotry from the left from day 1. 

Or more succinctly

The core of Harris Miller's campaign strategy is bigotry from the left.

Traced or not, the cartoon character was spot on Harris Miller. 

This is what you said that made me uncomfortable.

Miller could have the straightest nose on earth, sandy blond hair, and bright blue eyes.  If he turned out the same and lead the ITAA in the destruction of American jobs I would still hate him.

How would you phrase that if Miller belonged to another minority? 

As for this comment, go back and read my early diaries. I am more than familiar with the "madness in this."

Don't you see the madness in this?  If not, all I can say is wow.  The fact that you are "offended" shows just how ungenuine you are.

I have never seen them before.  And I am over 50.

What the hell.

Miller could have the straightest nose on earth, sandy blond hair, and bright blue eyes.  If he turned out the same and lead the ITAA in the destruction of American jobs I would still hate him."

OK, I think I see where you are coming from.  I agree with your sentiments on the good professor projecting his focused knowledge on the rest of us.  I don't think most Americans will make any connection between that flyer and nazi war propoganda - nor do I think the artist made that connection.

In regards to my statement, I was trying to say that even if he was like the stereotypical anglo-saxon and didn't fit into any classification normally associated with discrimination, I would still not like him because of his actions. 

My use of that analogy was really based upon the period of cartoon we are talking about - in the days of Hitler his "Perfect German" had sandy blonde hair, blue eyes, and was well statured.  Ironically Hitler didn't meet his own litmus test of a "Perfect German" - and in fact I don't meet that litmus test given that I don't have blonde hair or blue eyes.

In short if you remove race, religion, and everything else that people discriminate against from the equation - I would not like Miller.  In fact if you add all those back into the equation, it does not change my views on Miller at all. 

"How would you phrase that if Miller belonged to another minority?"

I'm not sure I understand the premise of the question.  I may use another analogy if say we are talking about people of Middle Eastern descent, but the reason I used this one has more to do with the period of cartoon the professor speaks about and not Miller himself.

1. Something was odd about Harris' look.  It's been pointed out numerous times above, but it does stand out.  His mouth appeared crooked (like on an angle) and he did twitch or tick - frequently after he gave an answer.  Is it nerves or a medical condition?  I have no idea.  It wasn't awful but it was distracting and a bit odd for TV.

2. Webb didn't have very many "ums".  He was bashed for this from the last TV debate.  He did pause a few times and it struck me that he was probably suppressing those "ums".  Unless you have been following that saga you wouldn't have noticed.  A few did slip in when he and Miller were going head to head.  But mostly smooth presentation.

3. Chris said it a few times: there's not much of a difference between the two.  They only disagreed on DADT.  Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd quite agree with Chris on that point, but I did think that both candidates came across as Democrats.  In other words, there wasn't much to back Miller's angle that Webb is still a Republican.

4. Their questions to each other were clearly just vehicles to make a negative point about the other.  Webb hit Harris on Lobbying and Harris hit back with the votes for Bush and Allen.  While neither made a major impact, Harris did a little better with this one because he had a direct answer that went after lobbyists (hypocrite - but good answer).  Jim had a good answer too, but it wasn't a direct response to Miller's question.  So it looked a little like a dodge.  Bad?  No, but I'd give the edge to Miller on this one.

Overall impression is that Webb did do a slightly better job - he looked more comfortable and thoughtful.  But Harris did say many of the right things even though he didn't look too good. 

he looked alittle sweaty too

http://www.archive.org/download/ToddSmythWebbMillerHardballDebate/WebbMillerHardballDebate.wmv

Unions on Miller:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801650.html

"The union leaders have gone after Miller for his stewardship of the Information Technology Association of America, saying the organization played a crucial role in opposing restrictions on outsourcing."

"The fact is he and ITAA are some of the biggest proponents of bringing in foreign workers while at the same time exporting American jobs,"

Apparently all folks younger than me interrupt and talk over each other, which annoys me no end, and Hardball Matthews is no exception, although I suppose he's not so bad as O'Reilly etc. On the whole, Webb won. IMHO

I just watched the video feed from MSNBC web site, and although I think the end got cut off, Webb clearly was more comfortable and in command of his presence.  I didn't like his immigration answers at all.  He should be very, very well rehearsed on answers on all the major issues by now, so that was his only real weak point.

Oh, well that and the fact that he's against almost 70% of people (and Virginians) who say get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I loved that he remains unwilling to be badgered into an answer that he's not comfortable giving.  Unlike Harris.

Good show, Jim.

Don't forget that he scored 100% on the Virginia Partisans questionnaire.

The whole Gay thing, such a lie, if Miller could offshore outsource the military (and believe me he fought against the idea that DoD/federal/state contracts could not be offshore outsourced) he would.

I find it irksome that Webb is saying what he really thinks where Miller sounds like he read the liberal keyword playbook and parrots it, but his actions for 20+ years are completely corporate and I see nothing in any of his deeds for labor of in the interest of any minority group or fairness.

My impressions of the debate, I think Webb is a thinker obviously and so he's not good at sound bytes.

Miller is great at sound bytes...after all he's been crafting corporate propaganda press kits to be spewed all the way to the Senate floor (we have a worker shortage, America needs to be competitive) for years.

I don't care if either of them dye their hair or if they had showed up in gorilla suits(although that would have made it more fun).  I don't care if Miller is a caffeine riddled twitcher or if Webb believes too much in the pregnant pause (although I'm very glad Webb kept his hands away from his face and I thought Miller's tie looked ridiculous whereas Webb looked like someone had thought out the entire color scheme including matching background to suit and tie!)...

I care is anybody in the Senate going to give a rats ass about the middle class and stop this insane private contractor $$ driven war.

Confident Miller crushes Wobbly Webb in Hardball Debate

There's no question about it - Harris Miller took on the toughest "Hardball" Chris Matthews had to offer and showed why he is the strong, confident, well-prepared candidate that can beat George Allen in November.

By contrast, Jim Webb fumbled nearly every question he was asked. And when Chris Matthews asked both candidates if they supported Mark Warner's possible run for President in 2008, Harris answered a resounding "yes." Jim Webb squirmed and said he was "undecided."

That tells us everything we need to know about who is the real Virginia Democrat we can count on.

Throughout the show, Harris confidently handled every question he was asked. He repeated his call for Donald Rumsfeld's firing for his failures in Iraq. (As he has throughout the campaign, Jim Webb refused to make the same call.) Harris talked knowledgeably about the immigration issue, while Webb floundered in his answer, several times complaining that it was "complicated." Harris called for a re-evaluation of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, while Webb said he believed it should stay intact.

Harris also consistently used his answers to take the fight to George Allen, just as he has throughout this campaign and will straight through until November.

Meanwhile, Webb couldn't explain his recent comments that "Clinton fatigue" led him to endorse George Allen over Chuck Robb in 2000. He continued to dodge the question of what values he saw in George Allen and George Bush six years ago that made him think they would take our country in the right direction. And Jim Webb showed no sign that he was willing or able to aggressively take on George Allen.

The Miller campaign has incredible momentum as we roll into the last few days of this election. Today on "Hardball," Harris showed Virginia and the national audience why he is the only candidate that can win on Tuesday and win in November!

Granted, I'm for Warner, but I could be swayed, depending on what John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Wes Clark are saying.

So, probably, my top four for 2008 are:
1-Warner
2-Edwards
3-Biden
4-Clark

The number 1 has been the same for a while, but the other three just kind of rotate.

But as for Miller saying "real" Virginia Democrats all support Warner, would the same be applied to all "real" New York Democrats?  Doubt it.

However, it is much too early to be deciding.  Even if you work on the Warner Draft campaign, you may be thinking, maybe Mark won't run? 

A big issue in '08 (maybe THE ISSUE) is the war in Iraq. True, Bush did not have ANY war expertise, just hired all the Neocons to do this for him. But this time around, the issue of Iraq and how are we going to get out of it is pretty important, in fact probably the most important. What is Mark saying, Hillary saying, Biden saying.  All sound bites right now, if that.

Can Hillary do it?  Can Biden?  Do we know?  It is so early to choose on the presidential candidate for '08, that many of the folks THINKING about running don't even know the answers THE EXIT STRATEGY.  I thought Miller's answer by the way about not voting for more money for the war was an oooops. ( I believe that is what he said.....hope nobody from Norfolk heard that one).(will check the transcripts).

The second big issue in '08 is going to be the economy/energy prices.  The Stock Market is doing terrible and it is making me worried and I am a little investor.  Mark is super qualified for this and did a great job in Virginia. 

Webb's answer was great, UNDECIDED.  That is what he was feeling and it is honest.  It is where I am at too.  I like an honest candidate.  Go Jim.

There's no question about it - Harris Miller took on the toughest "Hardball" Chris Matthews had to offer and showed why he is the strong, confident, well-prepared candidate that can beat George Allen in November.

I guess if your definition of toughest means not tough at all and pretty squirrely, then yeah, Miller was the "toughest."

By contrast, Jim Webb fumbled nearly every question he was asked. And when Chris Matthews asked both candidates if they supported Mark Warner's possible run for President in 2008, Harris answered a resounding "yes." Jim Webb squirmed and said he was "undecided."

No fumbling, no squirming.  What about when Matthews asked Miller if he had any history books?  I notice that was left out of this piece of trash.

Throughout the show, Harris confidently handled every question he was asked. He repeated his call for Donald Rumsfeld's firing for his failures in Iraq. (As he has throughout the campaign, Jim Webb refused to make the same call.) Harris talked knowledgeably about the immigration issue, while Webb floundered in his answer, several times complaining that it was "complicated." Harris called for a re-evaluation of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, while Webb said he believed it should stay intact.

Um, hi.  Firing Rumsfeld will do nothing-just friggin rhetoric.  Empty statements with no answers behind them do not make for policy Mr. Miller.  And immigration is complicated.  Duh.  DADT isn't an issue I am bringing to the polls, but that is just me, so whatever.

Meanwhile, Webb couldn't explain his recent comments that "Clinton fatigue" led him to endorse George Allen over Chuck Robb in 2000. He continued to dodge the question of what values he saw in George Allen and George Bush six years ago that made him think they would take our country in the right direction. And Jim Webb showed no sign that he was willing or able to aggressively take on George Allen.

Yeah, ok.  Simply by being there, Webb looked better to take on allen.  Who spins these, did Miller hire Fox news to write their memos?

Miller looked like he was afraid that the show was going to switch from Hardball to Dodgeball...

Miller's press release actually reminds me of Karen Hughes after her boss bombed big-time with Kerry. She was manic, if you remember, black is white and up is down.

But Webb looked better. He looked like somebody you could hang out with, have a beer with...

Oh, God! What am I saying?

This was no debate.  I felt Webb looked and sounded more confident.  It's pretty obvious Webb has a deep understanding of the issues and was not intimidated by Mathews.  Miller on the other hand looked like a frightened schoolboy called on by a tough teacher.  When Matthews asked him if he had access to history books, I was hoping Mr. Miller was wearing his brown pants, because he sure looked like he was ready to fill them. 

I'd give the "debate" to Webb.  But the local debate I saw on the internet would give you a much better idea of how the candidates really speak. In the local debate, it was pretty obvious Webb was in command from the beginning.  I'm not a Virginian, just an interested outsider.  I do believe Virgina has a rare opportunity with James Webb.  I haven't seen a better prepared candidate in a long time and I hope you folks send him to face George Allen.  The National Democrats are praying you'll do just that.  His intellect is unimpeachable and it's pretty obvious to me Webb would be a better choice for Virgina.  We Democrats need to field better candidates than we have in the last few years.  You have a real opportunity to do just that, Virginia.

Good Luck.  The whole country is watching this one. 

Nick Stump

It was all about Chris trying to sort out the differences between the candidates and he didn't have time for a debate or detailed discussion.