posted
They just finished the Republican debate, now they're on the Democrat one. What do people think?
There was an awful lot of bickering in the Republican one. I actually liked some of the things I heard from Ron Paul, but that's only cause his more extreme side didn't come out for some reason.
Kinda grumpy at ABC, they've had some pretty biased questions. "Why not Barack Obama?" The correct way to phrase the question would have been "You vs Barack. Why you?" Not, "Why not him?" *growls*
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a place to go look at it? Or was it on TV? I live in a semi-rural area and don't have cable.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "It's not amnesty," McCain shot back after Romney criticized his plan for overhauling the immigration system. "You can spend your whole fortune on these attacks ads, my friend, but it's not true."
Edwards impressed me tonight. I'm going to give him a second look.
Richardson tended to drone on; several times he repeated "I'm the only one up here with executive experience, who's balanced a budget, "etc, with almost identical wording. You made your point, now move on.
Clinton looked quite composed, I thought after Iowa I would see some desperation or flop sweat, but she did well.
I guess I would call it a tie between Obama and Edwards. I didn't watch the Republican debate as closely. But they did seem a lot testier, mixing it up whereas the Dems agreed with each other a lot.
The best moment was between the debates, when all candidates from both parties mingled on-stage for a few minutes.
posted
I watched both debates - although I might have missed just a few minutes of the Republican one.
FWIW, it looked to me as though Thompson had moments when he showed a thorough knowledge of some issues - but he needed to do more and what he did is too little too late. McCain was also uneven. He had some good moments, but his attacks on Romney often came across as petty and gratuitous. Huckabee was good when talking about general principles and his comments on Obama were absolutely terrific:
quote:"He has excited a lot of voters in this country. Let's pay respect for that," Huckabee said. "He is a likable person who has excited people about wanting to vote who have not voted in the past."
He also added that Republicans needed to give people something to for, not just against.
Guiliani didn't impress me much.
One thing that was made clear by McCain and Huckabee - if Romney is the eventual nominee, his history of shifting positions will haunt him.
***
As to the Democrats -- Clinton seemed to do the best job of being consistently articulate, analytical and knowledgable. I doubt it's enough since she needed to that and have Obama stumble badly. That wasn't in Obama's playbook - he was on top of his game last night.
Richardson was uneven, sometimes coming across well, but probably failing to make enough of an impression to change things for him.
Edwards was as he usually is - on point and energetic all night.
After reading all the commentary and looking at the demographics, etc. - I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Obama will win the NH primary. Edwards will come in third.
I expect Edwards to hang around for the South Carolina primary, but he won't win there (provided Obama wins New Hampshire).
It wouldn't surprise me if Edwards quits after South Carolina and throws his support to Obama. If that happens, it probably is all over for Clinton.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love how Mitt interrupts Paul, and when Paul tries to retaliate, Mitt says "Please, let me finish" like Paul is the offender (pt. 2).
Every other republican candidate is claiming to be a scholar on Islam and and playing off the American people's fear of Islamic jihad. Paul at least recognizes that the vast majority of them are just people like us who want to be left alone.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm watching the rebroadcast on CNN now. I am unimpressed, thus far, with The Great John McCain.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like every time I catch any portion of any of the Democratic debates, even if only for a few minutes on the radio while I'm in the car, I hear John Edwards start his answer with how his father worked in a mill. I get that he wants to emphasize working-class roots and overall I like his message, but it seems like "My father worked in a mill for 36 years" has replaced "Hello" in his vocabulary.
posted
He's also pretty pie in the sky, in my book. He wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons altogether, and he wants to eradicate poverty in 30 years. Neither of these sound like realistic goals to me, so I file them with Charlie Crist's promise, in his brief term as Commissioner of Education of Florida, to raise teacher salaries to over $100,000 a year: laughable BS.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They didn't get about 4th place in Iowa or at least 5% in a New Hampshire or National poll required to be invited to the debate. Basically ABC said "we're only gonna invite the folks who seem to have a realistic chance". Which kinda isn't cool. Just one more of the things that sorely pissed me off about the way they ran this debate.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's unfair that people are agreeing with the characterization that Edwards and Obama double-teamed on Clinton. On the contrary, Clinton attacked Obama, and then Edwards jumped on Clinton, repeatedly tying himself to Obama. Obama didn't actually attack Clinton or ally himself with Edwards. I didn't see any double-teaming.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only invite the people who have a slightly remove chance of having people vote for them. That's ridiculous! In fact, I should have been invited!
Hillary said uhh... a lot, then after she realized that she was sinking, she started attacking Edwards and Barack. Edwards had Barack's back, though.
Edit: Apparently Richardson publicly stated that he won the debate.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Only invite the people who have a slightly remove chance of having people vote for them. That's ridiculous! In fact, I should have been invited!
um, how about inviting the people who have qualified to be on the ballot? I would not qualify on that basis--would you?
quote: Edwards had Barack's back, though.
That's not how I see it. Barack could defend himself just fine. I don't think Edwards was defending him from big bad Hillary, but basically playing the "Me too!" game. Remember the kid in A Christmas Story who always hung around with the bully and acted tough? I'm not accusing Obama of being a bully, but Edwards is trying to use Obama's sudden surge as a weapon against Clinton, by portraying himself as some sort of brother-in-arms with Obama, and thus claiming Obama's victories as victories for himself as well. This will be especially important to do if Obama wins NH and Edwards comes in third.
I have been rather unimpressed with Edwards in this debate. His debating style reminds me of Dan Quayle's against Al Gore.
Come to think of it, looking at this debate, I'd swear that Edwards is campaigning for the Vice-Presidency right now. And he'd be harmless enough as a Vice-President, but I'd rather see someone more accomplished in that position. Especially given my position that Edwards wants to be Vice-President now so that he can make a much more serious run at the presidency in eight years.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I literally cried out with joy when Richardson reminded everyone else on the stage about the former Shah of Iran. He was already my pick because of his diplomatic experience, but since he's so far behind my new hope is for an Obama presidency with Richardson as VP or Secretary of State.
I also think his idea for Pakistan is interesting and merits consideration by both the U.S. and Pakistan.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was really surprised and impressed by Huckabee's stance on alternative fuels. Where all the other Republicans gave various renditions of 'We can't,' Huckabee came out with a 'We must.'
I was also impressed with Edwards and Obama.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: . . . my new hope is for an Obama presidency with Richardson as VP or Secretary of State.
I would like that. Richardson looks genuinely decent (and passionate!). And I would prefer not to see Edwards on the ticket, since it looks to me like he's angling for the VP slot. (And since he strikes me as just a pretty face and not as a legitimate legislator.) Knowing this country, though, it's hard to imagine Richardson on the ticket, since he's not especially charismatic.
Somebody specifically commented about not wanting to be Secretary of State. Who was that . . . Richardson? I can't remember now.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Richardson could have made his case better on Pakistan, as could have Obama. Suggesting violating Pakistan's sovereignty, as Obama bordered on doing, makes me uncomfortable. Their leadership is putatively allied with us; if it were me I would make the case for leaning on them to get their permission to go after Bin Laden in their territory, rather than just doing it over their objections.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus: in particular, violating their sovereignty in a way that could be misunderstood as an Indian strike. I, like many people, prefer to not start nuclear wars.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I got from the democratic debate is that Senator Clinton does not understand the "change" that Senator Obama and Mr. Edwards (and many of the rest of us) are talking about.
She is talking about a change from Republican to Democrat. That is ordinary, usual change. Obama and Edwards are talking about a more fundamental change in the way we do politics. More grassroots, less "machine", less partisan, less dependant on special interests.
They are talking about changing the way the game is played. She is saying that she is really good at playing the game.
She is missing the point and that becomes more clear everytime she talks about change.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get that from anything Edwards or Obama is saying. I find the notion of last cycle's veep candidate positioning himself as a change and Clinton as the status-quo faintly ridiculous.
ETA: As far as I can tell, Edwards's definition of change is simply "not in office before 1998."
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? I think that his stance on lobbyists, for example, is indicative of the kind of change I am talking about.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to have heard Obama's answer to Clinton's charge that the head of his NH campaign is a lobbyist.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
When you click on the candidates' names, you get a breakdown of their sources of financing. My interpretation is that lobbyist funding falls under PAC, and based on that, all the candidates seem pretty equal. Obama and Edwards are among the best in this regard to be sure, but they don't seem all that unique.
This table is hard to read--it almost looks like the headings are mistyped--but it seems to indicate what percent of a candidate's donations are large and what are small. It is sortable, using the pull-down menu. This isn't perfect, but my supposition would be that a larger percentage of small donors is indicative to being less beholden to special interests than a larger percentage of large donors. Is this a fair assessment?
(I don't have a clue how to interpret Alan Keyes's statistics.)
When I sort by what percentage of donors donated $200 or less, Edwards and Obama look "better" than Clinton, but they're not alone in having a large percentage of small donors, nor are they they best in the field. Edwards is sixth and Obama is eighth out of a field of sixteen candidates.
When I sort by the percentage of funds from donations of $2300 or more, again Edwards and Obama are in the middle of the pack. Counting from the bottom (considering the bottom to be "best") Edwards and Obama are eighth and ninth, respectively, in terms of the lowest proportion of large donors.
When I look at the number of large donors, instead of the percentage, Obamas second only to Clinton.
Now I realize that large contributions is not precisely equal to special interests, but that's where the first set of data came in. It seems to me like Edwards and Obama are not the worst offenders, but not all that revolutionary either.
Am I overlooking something?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't understand is how Edwards, Hillary, and even the republicans think they can beat Obama at his game. His idea of change is more than just policy, it's inspiring, especially in young people, a new optimism about our country, and healing division.
None of the other candidates, except maybe McCain, and certainly not Hillary, can try to take that label.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are an improvement over Senator Clinton. Right now the "game" is what it is and you have to play to get elected. I think that they both are idealistic about changing it without being so naive that they are doomed to lose. It is a change in direction.
And it is only partly about money (though that is a big part). It is also about favors and "machine" politics. I think that Senator Obama is positioned well in terms of being able to work the machine (he "grew up" politically) in Chicago after all without thinking that working the machine is an end in itself.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama will win if he appeals to the greatest number of voting blocs. Young 18-25 year old voters are far and away the least reliable bloc for any candidate, and always have been. I am inclined to believe nothing has happened to change that. Hillary does not need the young voter bloc. She needs the women's vote, the left's vote, the minority vote, and as much of the senior citizen bloc as she can get.
Of course Obama so far is most appealing to the young bloc, and he wants their votes, but he is appealing to moderates of all age groups while not alienating the loyal Democrates. He will win if he succeeds in that effort.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think anyone who expects any candidate who has gotten this far to bring about a change in the way we do politics is mistaken. The only way any candidate has gotten this far, even Ron Paul, is by adapting and using the political process to get ahead. Most of them have years of history acting like normal politicians, including Obama and Edwards. And while the President has a big bully pulpit, he still has to practice politics with a lot of other people to get anything done.
Certainly Obama might mildly change the tone, but the substance? No, only a few priorities.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I sort by what percentage of donors donated $200 or less, Edwards and Obama look "better" than Clinton, but they're not alone in having a large percentage of small donors, nor are they they best in the field. Edwards is sixth and Obama is eighth out of a field of sixteen candidates.
When I sort by the percentage of funds from donations of $2300 or more, again Edwards and Obama are in the middle of the pack. Counting from the bottom (considering the bottom to be "best") Edwards and Obama are eighth and ninth, respectively, in terms of the lowest proportion of large donors.
I've spent a large part of the last few days catching up on political news coverage. I think the list of $4600 donations (the max allowed) might be outdated.
According to Tim Russert, on one show I was watching, Clinton's real problem in terms of a prolonged primary fight is that so many of her donors have given the maximum allowed by law. They *can't* give any more.
OTOH, Obama is well-situated for a long primary campaign. The majority of his support comes from small donations (maybe 200 dollars or so) and they can go back and ask all of those folks for more money.
This could very well spell even bigger trouble for Clinton if things don't turn around for her in a big way by Super Tuesday.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are an improvement over Senator Clinton. Right now the "game" is what it is and you have to play to get elected. I think that they both are idealistic about changing it without being so naive that they are doomed to lose. It is a change in direction.
And it is only partly about money (though that is a big part). It is also about favors and "machine" politics. I think that Senator Obama is positioned well in terms of being able to work the machine (he "grew up" politically) in Chicago after all without thinking that working the machine is an end in itself.
For the record, I currently (about 2/3 of the way through my research) support Obama. I'm not trying to puncture him because I oppose him and am trying to further my own candidate. That being said, is there a tangible way to quantify your statement here? Because from my perspective, any claims that anybody is a breath of fresh air or anything like that is based on their personalities and on their abilities as speakers and writers. I don't see concrete evidence that they are really that unprecedented. They may really be, but can you say so now with more than just a gut feeling?
(That doesn't mean there's no basis to choose one over another. I am judging the candidates based on how closely their positions and past votes align with my positions, whether their disagreements with me are on issues I value more or on issues I value less, their ability to turn back the tide of the past eight years [this speaks to "viability], and my gut perceptions of their intelligence, personality, and leadership qualities. I just want to know if you have something more than gut perception to go on when you make those judgments.)
I'm on your side, but that doesn't mean I buy everything Obama (or Edwards) is selling.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Obama will win if he appeals to the greatest number of voting blocs. Young 18-25 year old voters are far and away the least reliable bloc for any candidate, and always have been. I am inclined to believe nothing has happened to change that.
quote:The turnout on the Democratic side was unreal. It soared from 124,000 in 2004 to 230,000 in 2008. And that’s all about the man who won.
Obama’s been drawing record crowds from San Francisco to Des Moines — but there was always the question of whether he could produce a similar effect among real live voters.
He did so in a way that no one predicted. 57 percent of the caucus goers tonight had never caucused before. Most impressive: As many people under thirty showed up as senior citizens.
That’s f**king nuts is what that is. That’s the Rock the Vote political wet dream that never ever comes true… actually coming true. What this portends for Obama as a national candidate is something truly special. He’s not only proven that he can draw the support of independents and open-minded Republicans. He’s the one guy who can make the Democratic pie higher, bringing new, unlikely voters into the fold. If he could replicate this kind of support among young people in a general election, it’s game over.
That's a big "if," of course.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
OTOH, Obama is well-situated for a long primary campaign. The majority of his support comes from small donations (maybe 200 dollars or so) and they can go back and ask all of those folks for more money.
And, believe me, they do!
Icky, I know. I didn't think that we were disagreeing - more exploring this together. Although I think the fundraising - and the people from whom they are raising funds bears it out, I think it is largely intangibles and what they say. When Senator Clinton says, "I have been making change" for 35 years" she is not talking about the "meta" change that I think we need. Obama and Edwards are at least talking about that kind of change. Practically, I think they are doing what is realistic in terms of implementing it. Moving in the right direction. Some go beyond what is realistic, but I don't think they are viable candidates yet. Maybe they will be someday.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair to Clinton, she did try to get at least one substantial change implemented -- her failed health care plan in the 1990s.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At our caucus site and those of two friends I talked to Obama supporters were the only ones who had kids along. All the groups had some college-age people, and Edwards had a few people that looked like they were in their 20-30s. Clinton's supporters were mostly 40's and up. The Obama circle had three baby/toddlers and a oouple of elementary age kids.
Maybe everybody else hired babysitters, but I found it interesting that over 10% of the Obama caucusers had kids along and no one else had any.Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky, she did. But I'm not making myself clear.
The change that I am talking about is about process as much as about product.
And another point. Just the level of turnout and enthusiam is, in itself, a good thing for the democratic process. The freakin' electorate is paying attention.
edit: and the rhetoric is important. It sounds simplistic but fear is a powerful rhetorical tool. If you want people to follow you, make them afraid. It is one that we have seen used a great deal in recent years. And it has worked. That Obama has rejected that tool (even if it is because he has recognized that we are starting to reject it), is important to me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll try to find it again, but I read an article a month ago about Obama and lobbyists, and it was one of the reasons I support him so much now. A researcher went to Illinois to talk to his fellow state legislators and lobbyists in the state. He forced through laws there that restrict lobbyist donations to state legislators, even something as simple as them buying lunch. Everyone pretty much universally agreed that Obama wouldn't just follow a position just for a donation, and even with lobbyists whose positions he personally agreed with he would question them for hours on their subject before he agreed to take on the issue himself.
That to me DOES sound like a change. Personally I don't necessarily have a problem with taking lobbyist money, so long as you already agree with that lobbyist. If you and a union agree on changes that should be made and the union gives you money, I think that's fair, and nothing to be penalized for.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is what Senator Obama did in the Illinois state legislature. Political reform in Illinois!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama defended his NH chair as being a state lobbyist not a federal one and his position is that he will not have or take money from people that would influence him on issues at the federal level; so no federal lobbyists need apply. That, to me, seems a bit of hair splitting.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obama defended his NH chair as being a state lobbyist not a federal one and his position is that he will not have or take money from people that would influence him on issues at the federal level; so no federal lobbyists need apply. That, to me, seems a bit of hair splitting.
No it isn't. The man won't try and influence him. And that's what he's saying, he will not be influenced by lobbyists or PAC's or big money. Just cause the man's involved in politics on the state level -- and that's what the vast majority of lobbyists are, simply involved in politics the only way they can be -- doesn't mean he'll influence Obama on the federal level. Or that he (the lobbyist) doesn't wanna change the system in which he works the same way we do.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thoughts as it goes on, for the Republican debate:
Paul still stands as the lone voice of, well, intelligent understanding of the issues? When Romney tried to shut him out, and then cut him off and blame him for cutting Romney off, frankly he was wrong when he corrected him. Paul DOES understand the issue and Romney more or less said "you don't have to understand WHY they hate us, just that their goal is to take down EVERYONE." And then goes on to say that we need to use our military (or vastly increased military) to basically change the foundation of less than moderate Islamic belief. So we're on from nation building to religion building? Yipes! And then Rudy Giuliani goes after Paul again. Paul is right! You have to look at WHY these people want to attack us. Giuliani says again they hate us because of freedom and not because of foreign policy. He's wrong six ways from Sunday. They are all wrong. They all tripped over themselves to attack Paul and didn't let him finish! Damn. Where is the Republican kool-aid being created? A factory somewhere? Jesus, they LAUGHED at him. I'm disgusted by everyone on that stage except Paul (and maybe McCain who stayed quiet).
I'll add to that by saying there might be a way they are both right, but Paul is more right. The literature they are referring to about the radicals wanting to bring down the west for freedom and all that, that might be their end game, but what causes most people to actually join their ranks? Just like in America, the party line and the reason the grunts are there aren't always the same, maybe even not usually the same. It's things like American troops on the ground on Saudi Arabian soil (in the past) and the other reasons Paul gave that caused the regular people to BECOME members of those radical groups that had the things Romney and Giuliani said are their endgame. Ignoring cause and going for intent is just plain stupid, and it's going to get a lot of Americans killed. It's that small minded non-critical thinking that leads me to believe they are incapable of being good commanders in chief, or good leaders of foreign policy. Gyah! This makes me want to vote for Paul even knowing the things I disagree with him about.
I'd like to see Ron Paul as SecState.
Edit to add: They all looked kinda silly on healthcare. Do we have the best quality of healthcare in the world? Maybe, possibly. But at issue here is the millions of Americans who CAN'T GET TO IT. It doesn't matter if we have the best if millions don't have access. I didn't hear any of them cover it. Even McCain sidestepped the issue of deductions not coming even close to saving enough money for families to buy their own insurance. Oh, I'll make an excecption (I'm commenting chronologically), Huckabee had a VERY good answer on preventative medicine. He nailed down a huge problem with our healthcare system that no one else touched on.
Immigration -
McCain - Some good stuff. Romney - So what does he propose, sending 12 million people back? Notice he doesn't actually say that, because not only is it impossible, but it'd be prohibitively expensive. Giuliani - Gets asked that question specifically (literally), and then says we CAN'T throw them all out, hooray for actually admitting it. Then they actually bring it up - Romney admits it isn't practical, but still says they shouldn't all be allowed to stay. I don't know how that really tracks. Thompson seems to follow Romney, but again, you can't send them all home, but they can't stay, so...
On Obama -
Seems like since they were told they aren't allowed to say they don't like him because he's a Democrat, they say they don't like him because he's a liberal. Mostly they seemed to outline Republican vs Democrat as opposed to them vs Obama. And it was smart of Huckabee to point out Obama's effect on the populace, and saying Republicans need something to be FOR and not AGAINST.
Gas prices -
Funny, a lot of them sound like Democrats. I wonder how people view them in terms of credibility. Democrats have been talking about this, and have been shouted down on this for years, and now Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon. Interesting.
The thing that pissed me off the most in this debate? The derision that everyone treated Paul with, and I don't really even support Paul! He explained numerous times, I think correctly, the problems we have, where they come from, and what to do to solve them. And everyone he did it, they LAUGHED at him and went in the other direction. It was like they all agreed before hand to treat him like a petulant child, but frankly I think they all came off looking like asses. Who won the debate? From my point of view, I think they all sucked pretty bad. From a Republican point of view? I think Romney got slapped several times by the other candidates and didn't really recover.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
