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*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
On TV on ABC... I dunno if it's online anywhere. YouTube maybe?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It was simulcast on Facebook, hence the ABC/Facebook debate.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I thought McCain had a good line tonight:
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.
(reposted from the general primary thread.)
[ January 06, 2008, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
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.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm watching the rebroadcast on CNN now. I am unimpressed, thus far, with The Great John McCain.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Google Ads: ANN COULTER (FREE!) Sign up to get Ann Coulter's latest articles by e-mail - FREE
um, where can I sign up to NOT receive any? I'll pay, if necessary.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
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.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
". . . seek immediate negotiations with the Soviet Union . . ."
*wince*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hillary speaks better when she's angry. Suddenly all the "uh"s are gone.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Richardson seems like a nice enough guy. So nice, in fact, that he always looks on the verge of tears. So passionate.
Say, where are Gravel and Kucinich?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
"If there was a bridge to nowhere, we'd know where it . . . um, never mind."
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I caught bits and pieces of it. My favorite one liner was an exchange between Huckabee and Romney:
Romney - 'Don't distort my position.' Huckabee - "Which one?"
Then you hear Giuliani laugh pretty heavily and the rest of the crowd join in.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I think the Republicans were much more entertaining than the Democrats that night.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I caught bits and pieces of it. My favorite one liner was an exchange between Huckabee and Romney:
Romney - 'Don't distort my position.' Huckabee - "Which one?"
Then you hear Giuliani laugh pretty heavily and the rest of the crowd join in.
McCain - "I just want to say: Governor Romney--we disagree on many things, but you are the candidate of 'change.'"
It's pretty clear that they're both tired of the ads.
--j_k
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Really? I think that his stance on lobbyists, for example, is indicative of the kind of change I am talking about.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I would like to have heard Obama's answer to Clinton's charge that the head of his NH campaign is a lobbyist.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm trying to learn more about the lobbyist issue. FactCheck.org didn't address any of the candidates claims on this as far as I could tell.
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?
Posted by charles_martel (Member # 10172) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Ic said (in part):
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.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Hillary does not need the young voter bloc.
Obama makes people feel young. Hillary reminds us of the past.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
To be fair to Clinton, she did try to get at least one substantial change implemented -- her failed health care plan in the 1990s.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is what Senator Obama did in the Illinois state legislature. Political reform in Illinois!
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
baduffer, I think it's nuance more than hair-splitting. And it's an important one for him to clarify, with his position on lobbyist influence.
-Bok
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Listening to the debates now...
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.
I'll do a separate post for the Democrats.
[ January 07, 2008, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On the Democratic side -
Pakistan -
If they had actionable intel and Pakistan wouldn't act, I might be okay with a covert op to attack. I'd have to know more details, but on paper it sounds okay at the moment. I'm glad Obama touched on loose nukes, it's a serious concern attached to smuggling of nuclear arms. Richardson sounded a little naive on the Pakistan issue, which is surprising since he would theoretically have the most experience on the issue. I don't mind diplomacy first, in fact I support it, but ask Musharraf to step down? Hah. Ask the Ayatollah and Kim Jong Il to do the same! I'm surprised they're spending so much time talking about nukes and Pakistan in the Democratic debate. It seemed in the Republican debate that they stuck to mainlike Republican issues and never really put the screws to them on issues they don't traditionally comment on a lot (education, alternative energy, etc), but seems that might be different for the Democratic side. However, I think it's better this way, it gives them a chance to hit issues they often are attacked on. Heh, whoops to Richardson on referring to Russia as the Soviet Union, but I guess I see his point. It's the stockpile of nukes in former Soviet states that are most at risk. Interesting that foreign policy for the Republicans was Iraq, for Democrats it was nukes and Pakistan. Not bad, just interesting.
Domestically...
Now you know that Clinton has to go after Obama a bit, she needs to claw back into first place somehow. But despite that, I still thought the candidates are generally being more friendly with each other than the Republicans were. Though, just as I say that, Hillary's little "deliver change" rant came pretty close to sounding shrill.
What I'd like to see, in general, is in addition to pointing out differences in voting records (which is fair) is an actual debate on the issue itself. They aren't arguing over their differences in policy, they are arguing over changes in voting records. It's hard to know who to vote for when they won't discuss the differences in their ideas, you don't know who is right, necessarily. I blame the moderator for that though as much as I blame the candidates.
I'm glad they asked them what they think about the surge (not sure how it is a domestic issue), since Bush and the Republicans like to say so often that the Democrats actually WANT us to lose, sorry, when I say that I mostly mean OSC, but you hear it from the national figures too. None of them say that the military battle is going badly, not really, they are saying that the military battle though important, is immaterial to the fact that there is still NO POLITICAL PROGRESS. We can win fights until the sun goes down (and up again, and down again etc), but it's all useless if there is no political solution to give them longterm stability. The surge was supposed to give them that chance, and they aren't taking it. I think they should have paid more lip service to saying that the surge works militarily, but, good points. Obama was interesting on putting the reduction in violence into perspective, though according to factcheck.org, he's a bit off on the specifics. Also an interesting take on the situation in al-Anbar, I haven't heard that one before. I think the moderator was being too critical of them, what is he, a Republican schill? Where was that kind of interaction in the Republican debate? I'm not sure about what Edwards says about reduced violence in British areas. I heard that when they left, locals lamented the fact that they were leaving, and the situation got worse. Richardson is wrong when he says get them all out in a year. Experts predict the fastest they could be pulled out is 15 months.
Part II
Richardson goes on and on about his credentials, then finally gets to something good in energy policy, which leads me to believe he'd again make a good Energy Secretary, or a pointperson on Energy for the country of some kind. And I don't know, I sort of have to agree with (I think Icarus) whoever said that it seems like Edwards is running for VP again. I liked his plea for representation for the common man. Hillary's attacks on Edwards and Obama didn't seem fair. It looked like she felt she was losing control to a populist message and wanted to slap them down. She's trying to say "look at me I can get stuff done," but it comes off to me as "I'm Washington, and you two can't get any of your idealistic dreams made into reality." I think it hurts her.
Interesting comment from the moderator on change. I don't tell if he was being thankful, ironic, or sarcastic.
Edwards won some points from me by invoking TR. But that's just because I love TR. Good response from Obama about Hillary's "words don't matter" spiel.
All good stuff, pretty much all in agreement on a Green economy, efficiency, creating jobs with renewable energy.
In summary, I don't think the Democrats really quarreled that much, and I don't think any of them came out looking especially good or especially bad. Hillary and Edwards might have done a teeny bit better, but not by much at all. I'd say that the moderator was a bit partisan at times, but I'll leave him out. Hillary tried again to make her experience matter most, but I don't know if it took or not. I think this debate will have no effect on the vote, but the Republican side was much more interesting.
[ January 07, 2008, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Before I finish my Democratic coverage I'll post these, the factcheck.org articles for the two debates and their highlights:
quote: Romney claimed that the 47 million Americans who lack health care are not covered because they say "I'm not going to play. I'm just going to get free care paid for by everybody else." Experts say that very few who are offered insurance turn it down and that the uninsured get worse care.
Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that occurred in large part under President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. He said that “the Army had been at 725,000; it’s down to 500,000.” That’s true, but it was down to 572,423 by the time Clinton took office.
McCain recalled that he "strongly disagreed" with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and had "no confidence" in his Iraq strategy "at the time." But he didn't say publicly that he had no confidence in Rumsfeld until December 2004, after Bush was reelected and well after the war began. . Romney falsely denied that an attack ad called McCain’s immigration bill "amnesty," though it does. One of his Web ads also attacks McCain for supporting "amnesty." He conceded during the debate that McCain’s bill "technically" isn’t amnesty. Giuliani claimed that "economists" say health insurance rates would fall by up to 50 percent if millions more shopped for policies individually. Once again, his campaign was unable to produce a single economist who supports that figure.
Romney claimed his Massachusetts state insurance program had reduced the number of uninsured in Massachusetts by 300,000. That’s the number who have gained coverage under the system, but many were covered previously through other means. There were other false and misleading
quote:Obama claimed we are "back where we started two years ago" in Iraq. Actually, all indicators of violence show dramatic improvement compared with two years ago.
Clinton repeated a misleading claim that the 2005 energy bill was "larded with all kinds of special interest breaks" for the oil industry. Actually, the bill resulted in a net increase in taxes on the oil industry, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Obama stated that U.S. medical care costs "twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation," which is incorrect. U.S. spending is double the average, but not double that of all others.
Clinton said there is no reason that U.S. troops should be in Iraq "beyond today," but she has also conceded that she might keep combat troops fighting there for years.
Richardson said the price of gasoline in New Hampshire is at a record high. It's close, but lower than he said, and lower than it was a few weeks ago.
In the analysis section we note further misstatements and twisted facts, and we find that Clinton was close to the mark when she criticized Obama for shifting positions on the USA Patriot Act.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
One thing that confuses me: When did changing positions become such a negative thing? Has the phrase "flip-flop" always been used as an attack? Is there higher value in always sticking to your principles than keeping an open mind?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't have a problem with people changing their minds. But when people change their minds, they have a record of espousing one position, and then they change, and they have a consistent position of espousing the new position. For instance, Clinton on the original authorization of force in Iraq. I don't see it as a flip-flop, but as an admission of having been wrong initially. The line is fuzzy, but I think flip-flopping is more about repeatedly changing your alleged position based on whom you are talking to. Or when the change in position seems motivated by nothing but political expedience. I guess if you change your mind, I want to know exactly how that happened. If you duck the issue, and if you changed your stance from an unpopular stance to a popular one, then I suspect that you're poll-watching and flip-flopping. For instance, Clinton on driver licenses for illegal aliens. First she was for them, and later she was against them, but she never really explained the change of heart.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'd heard so much about Paul, mostly from here, and I was eager to see him in the debates. Let me tell you, I was not impressed at all in the debates, and today I got to hear him on a local ultraconservative AM radio show, and I found him even more ridiculous. All he's got going for him is he's the main Republican opposing the war. Aside from that, though, he's a lousy candidate. Yeah, the neocon machine may be keeping him down, but that doesn't automagically make him a good president.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I don't think many here actually considered Paul a serious candidate. He does, however, stick to his guns and present his views clearly and honestly, and many of us find that quite refreshing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree with Icarus 100% on the issue of flipflopping. I'd never heard the term used the way it is now before Kerry was attacked with it on a daily basis by the Republican attack machine. The person I hear most associated with the word this time around has been Romney thus far.
As for Paul, I don't think he's viable as a candidate, I don't think he has a shot, I wouldn't vote for him (though earlier I said I was tempted to, it was an emotional response, and only in the primaries), and I really don't agree with him on most things. But, when it comes to 9/11 and jihadists, he was making extremely good points and not only was he railroaded by the other candidates, they LAUGHED at him. That's what pissed me off the most, was the smug, derisive way they just shot him down.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I consider Paul the BEST candidate, whether he can win or not.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: One thing that confuses me: When did changing positions become such a negative thing? Has the phrase "flip-flop" always been used as an attack? Is there higher value in always sticking to your principles than keeping an open mind?
I vaguely remember "flip-flopping" used as political term in the Clinton years. But in 2004 Kerry became synonymous with it, both because he did it a lot ("I voted for the war before I voted against it") and because the Republicans and the Bush re-election campaign specifically brilliantly used it against him.
When Kerry said "I voted for the war before I voted against it", the Bush team had it in their commercials/websites within 24-48 hours, and they flogged that quote forever to nail Kerry as a flip-flopper.
Also, they even brought literal flip-flops to rallys, speeches and their national convention. A perfect prop.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Between that out-of-context tidbit and the whole Swiftboat thing, 2004 was about the worst example of ugly campaigning I can recall. I hope 2008 will be better, but maybe that's not realistic.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: 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.
quote: "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
I mostly agree Russell. Except modern fundraising has broadened the base of contributers, so a president might not be as beholden to vested interests as he or she was once guaranteed to be. Howard Dean's very successful use of the internet for fundraising in 2004 has been followed this year by Paul's amazing and Obama's respectable net fundraising efforts.
Also, the ever-accelerating rate of technological change will have a large impact on everything, including politics, eventually.
Therefore, the status quo is not as static as it once was. This creates opportunity for a bold leader to seek real change. Whether Obama or anyone else can carry it off is debatable. I doubt it, but I'm still voting for him. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To clear it up, "I voted for the war before I voted against it," wasn't a flip flop, at least not in the correct sense that Icarus defined it. He voted for it in committee, didn't like the bill at the end, and voted against it. It's not flip flopping, it's the US Senate. I agree with Icarus, that was a sick year for negative campaigning. I don't think that it was at all an honest campaign. It was word twisting (not even pointing out differences in voting records, it was outright lying to attack the other person) and character assasination.
I don't know that Paul HAS adopted the traditional political mold. I think he's doing well at 10% despite the fact that he isn't doing the things he should be doing. It's his grassroots soldiers, the grassroots fundraising, the clamor from the masses that is getting his name in the air. All he does is bumble around spouting off somewhat unclearly at times, his philosophy of government. He says the same things everywhere he goes, in the same tone, in the same way. Near as I can tell, he hasn't pandered, I haven't seen an attack ad, and he hasn't changed his message. Everything that got him where he is? The effect of his message on a small but extremely motivated people to get him there.
How did Obama get started? A rousing speech that might as well have been an announcement for office in 2004. I didn't know who he was before that speech. But I remember thinking to myself on the night of the convention when he spoke, I remember thinking "damn, I wish I could vote for HIM right now and not Kerry." And that didn't go away in the last 3 years. I don't think he's torn down Hillary in the last couple months because he attacked her enough to knock her off her perch, I don't think he tore her down at all. I think he built himself up that high through sheer hope and optimism, from his message. I don't know how much that comes as politics as usual, but it's the first time in a long time that I've felt this hopeful about a candidate for ANY office. There's something a little special there. Thus far I haven't seen any character assasinations coming from him, I haven't seen anything I'd personally consider out of bounds or unfair.
You want examples of politics as usual, look at the leaders of the Republican field. Whew, I'm having 04 flashbacks, I'm having a token few 2000 flashbacks (I was 16 then, gimme a break). I don't think we know yet what kind of politics Obama will play, though from his Illinois legislature days, I think he stands out again as an agent of positive change from the status quo we tend to deride. We'll see what he does if he gets the nod, which I think by the end of the day today will look a lot more certain (but that's just a guess, but I think he's different.
I don't expect him to change the entire political process overnight. I can't even concieve of what that type of change could possibly even look like. Does anyone here? Can he change partisan bickering? Yes I think he can. Do I think ANY of the other candidates running for office can? No, I don't. Can he make us feel better about government? I think he can. Will he bring more honesty to the presidency than we've seen in the last 20 years? Yes, I think he could.
Also that fundraising thing that Morbo said.
Already I consider those possibilities a big change. I guess it all depends on what you really are looking for in a change. I want someone in office I can trust, someone with integrity, someone who doesn't use fear to cow citizens into submission. That's a serious change from politics as usual in Washington, and I believe that's what he'd do. Politicians have to play politics, it's inherent to the job, and I don't see that EVER changing. It's how they do it that matters to me. I see a big change from the status quo from an Obama presidency.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't know that Paul HAS adopted the traditional political mold. I think he's doing well at 10% despite the fact that he isn't doing the things he should be doing. It's his grassroots soldiers, the grassroots fundraising, the clamor from the masses that is getting his name in the air. All he does is bumble around spouting off somewhat unclearly at times, his philosophy of government. He says the same things everywhere he goes, in the same tone, in the same way. Near as I can tell, he hasn't pandered, I haven't seen an attack ad, and he hasn't changed his message. Everything that got him where he is? The effect of his message on a small but extremely motivated people to get him there.
I agree entirely with this.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: One thing that confuses me: When did changing positions become such a negative thing? Has the phrase "flip-flop" always been used as an attack? Is there higher value in always sticking to your principles than keeping an open mind?
I vaguely remember "flip-flopping" used as political term in the Clinton years. But in 2004 Kerry became synonymous with it, both because he did it a lot ("I voted for the war before I voted against it") and because the Republicans and the Bush re-election campaign specifically brilliantly used it against him.
When Kerry said "I voted for the war before I voted against it", the Bush team had it in their commercials/websites within 24-48 hours, and they flogged that quote forever to nail Kerry as a flip-flopper.
Also, they even brought literal flip-flops to rallys, speeches and their national convention. A perfect prop.
Hits the nail on the head. Accusations of "flip-flop" didn't really become a big part of our political culture until the 2004 election, where it was indeed used brilliantly by the Bush campaign. It seems that all of Romney's opponents have definitely learned the lesson from that election and and now are mercilessly applying that label to EVERY position Romney holds. Most of the time the charge is totally without merit, but it gets good press because it makes for good TV. For example, Huckabee regularly has these glib (and in my opinion, snide, petty and unChristian) one-liners prepared to attack Romney whenever he gets the chance. In the ABC debate, he said "I supported the surge when Romney didn't." This is demonstrably false. Not only did Huckabee waffle on whether he supported the surge last Jan. 24th, he forgot to mention that Romney had thrown his full support behind the surge with a January 10th press release. This is only one example where Huckabee and McCain either mis-state or downright lie about Romney's supposed flip-flops in order to score political points.
As I have said before, Romney's opponents have successfully defined him as a flip-flopper, even from the get-go, and Romney's entire campaign has been marred by that definition. It'll be up to the voters in New Hamshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida to determine whether the flip-flop label will succeed in bringing down Romney's campaign
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I recall correctly, didn't Gary Trudeau use a waffle or a coin-flip to characterize Clinton?
Or was it Bush I?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Bush I.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
hmm...I was going to say the waffle with butter and syrup was Trudeau's Clinton. My memory doesn't always serve me well, though.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Mmmm... Waffles...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Clinton was the waffle. Bush I was the invisible man.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
The really important question is this: Which is better, (1)thick, fluffy, Belgian-style waffles or (2)thin, flavorful, rich waffles?
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
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.
If, like me, you believe that there is little difference between a professional lobbyist at the state level and one at the federal level other than who they talk to, then he is splitting hairs. A lobbyist is usually hired because they bring something that is needed by a company and that is contacts. He lobbies at the state level because that is where his contacts are. Well, now, he is developing contacts at the Federal level; you don't think his company will expect him to use them? You don't think he would use them? If you assign to him the most altruistic motives for being a lobbyist; that he truly believes that he is working for the greater good by lobbying for legislation that is favorable to his company and thus everyone, then how can he not, in good conscious, not try to influence Obama? And if he is not.....
I just think Obama made a mistake and the nuance of whether it is a state lobbyist or federal lobbyist is a way out. Edwards in particular and Obama have latched on to the idea that lobbyists are some kind of boogie man and by excluding them you somehow make yourself morally superior. If you want to paint yourself as Mr. Clean then you need to be very careful where you go or you will pick up contact dirt.
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)