[af_vet_rr]

Yep. It was fine to question that and get it out there, but she kept harping and harping on it even after he'd answered the questions about four times. Then she harped some more for two days after the debate was over.

You know what it feels like to me? It feels like somebody gives Bachmann a point to attack somebody over - Perry, Cain, now Newt, and she relentlessly attacks on that single point every chance she gets and runs it into the ground, and then somebody gives her a new talking point, and she moves on to that.

She comes across as extremely programmed. Other candidates, when they see something not work, they ease up and change the direction of their attack or the message. She doesn't. It's like she's given specific instructions and cannot deviate from those instructions, even when she's looking foolish.

[matthew fuller]

"she relentlessly attacks on that single point every chance she gets and runs it into the ground, and then somebody gives her a new talking point, and she moves on to that. She comes across as extremely programmed. Other candidates, when they see something not work, they ease up and change the direction of their attack or the message. She doesn't. It's like she's given specific instructions and cannot deviate from those instructions, even when she's looking foolish. "

Amen to that- she does not know when to quit. I was ready to scream after the twentieth time I heard about her 93 foster children.

[Allegra]

You know what it feels like to me? It feels like somebody gives Bachmann a point to attack somebody over - Perry, Cain, now Newt, and she relentlessly attacks on that single point every chance she gets and runs it into the ground, and then somebody gives her a new talking point, and she moves on to that.

Good analysis. It does appear that way. She's been pretty fair about spreading it around, but she sure does clamp on to a point.

I did like her taking it to Ron Paul when he started his standard Code Pink rant.