quote:Clinton- what experience? Being a Senator? She's only in a second term herself, isn't she?
IIRC she typically talks about her work as an attorney during the Nixon impeachment hearings as the beginning of her experience on capital hill, and goes all the way until the present, passing through her time as first lady, and a state senator.
edit: She also worked on Barry Goldwaters presidential campaign but I don't think she includes that time when she mentions her experience.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am concerned that Hilary is more smearable. Right now, her big push is her experience. Going against McCain, he'll eat her alive on experience. Obama (who you could argue has more experience in politics since he has some local experience to go against the one more term Hilary has) has not claimed experience and is almost anti experience so this would not be a vulnerability for him. I also have trouble with the 35 years of experience claim Hilary makes. I think a lot of people will think that being married to the president doesn't count and be offended by claims it does.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, now that Thompson is out of the race who will get a boost from his supporters? I saw in one poll that Huckabee is getting 25% of Evangelicals, Romney 20%, and Thompson 17% of evangelical voters. So perhaps both Romney and Huckabee get a bump which, looking at the same poll, could provide Romney with a win. Who knows.
Sergeant
Edit: I'm too slow Posts: 278 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Romney and Giuliani (much as I hate to say it) will catch most of this windfall. Giuliani will catch his neocon folks, and Romney the 80's nostalgia group.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I also have trouble with the 35 years of experience claim Hilary makes. I think a lot of people will think that being married to the president doesn't count and be offended by claims it does.
Frankly, I think it's very silly to discount the experience of being a spouse of the President. I'd say it's nearly as valuable as being Vice President or, say, Chief of Staff. Unless a couple never talk or interact with each other, each one will learn a lot about the other's career and have a far larger knowledge base about the subject than the average person.
I mean, I've been married to my husband for a little over a year, and I can guarantee you he knows a lot more about economics than the average person because I talk about it a lot with him. In fact, he probably knows more than a large number of economics majors. Likewise, I know a lot product management, the tech industry, & advertising than the average person, because he talks about what happened at work every evening.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband knows nothing about theoretically linguistics and runs away screaming like a little girl if I try to talk to him about it. But I have no doubt Hillary regarded her time as first lady as an apprenticeship.
P.S. Looking at my shiny new polls, Thomson had fallen from 12% to 6%, with McCain having a requisite gain. Maybe there's a "support the alpha wolf" contingent I hadn't considered.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's sat on the Senate Armed Services committee for seven years. That's not nothing, and it's more than some of the other candidates have. Actually I think it's more than most of the other candidates have, on both sides.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: My husband knows nothing about theoretically linguistics and runs away screaming like a little girl if I try to talk to him about it. But I have no doubt Hillary regarded her time as first lady as an apprenticeship.
P.S. Looking at my shiny new polls, Thomson had fallen from 12% to 6%, with McCain having a requisite gain. Maybe there's a "support the alpha wolf" contingent I hadn't considered.
I'll be your husband, pooka! Linguistics are awesome.
Edit: should it be Linguistics is awesome? Clearly I need to reread some stuff on the subject if I'm not even clear on whether it's plural or singular. But, either way, the awesomeness stands.
posted
There evidently is a Republican caucus in Louisiana today.
Linky. From what I can tell, the article says this caucus decides the apportionment of the unelected delegates to the national convention. The elected delegates will evidently be chosen on the Feb 9 date.
From another article:
quote:All of Louisiana's national convention delegates will be uncommitted, unless a presidential candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote Feb. 9 in the presidential preference primary. State party rules require 20 of Louisiana's at-large delegates to support that candidate on the first ballot of the national convention, but if no presidential candidate receives a majority of primary votes, the at-large delegates will be uncommitted.
Louisiana confuses me. So they choose today the delegates to the state convention for some districts, who will help decide whether the national delegates will be uncommitted or not? I don't know, something like that.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get a kick out of Sen. Clinton proclaiming that she has been "producing change for 35 years." Since most of that time she was just Bill Clinton's wife, I guess we should lament that she did not succeed in changing him more.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'll be your husband, pooka! Linguistics are awesome.
Edit: should it be Linguistics is awesome? Clearly I need to reread some stuff on the subject if I'm not even clear on whether it's plural or singular. But, either way, the awesomeness stands.
Nouns like this are almost always treated as singular, even though they are plural in construction.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I can tell, every state's delegates are divided into the unelected and elected. The elected are usually chosen through a primary, and the unelected are selected at the state convention. I think the caucusing today is to choose the state convention delegates who will in turn choose the at-large, unelected national delegates. Those delegates will evidently be committed to a candidate if some candidate captures a majority on primary day, Feb. 9. If not, they are uncommitted and can choose whomever.
I guess. I don't know, it seems pretty Byzantine.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I get a kick out of Sen. Clinton proclaiming that she has been "producing change for 35 years." Since most of that time she was just Bill Clinton's wife, I guess we should lament that she did not succeed in changing him more.
You don't sound like you really know her history all that well if that's what you think. I don't think she's been as instrumental as SHE claims, but saying she was "just Bill Clinton's wife" is a gross understatement of her history and her accomplishments.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I get a kick out of Sen. Clinton proclaiming that she has been "producing change for 35 years." Since most of that time she was just Bill Clinton's wife, I guess we should lament that she did not succeed in changing him more.
You don't sound like you really know her history all that well if that's what you think. I don't think she's been as instrumental as SHE claims, but saying she was "just Bill Clinton's wife" is a gross understatement of her history and her accomplishments.
But that is how many people view Hilary's experience. She keeps talking about her years of experience but to the average Joe, all they know is she was married to the president. She has not really made clear what her 35 years of experience is, just that she has 35 years of it.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many people know of any of the candidates' histories really well? I think that's less to do with the job she's done and more to do with public laziness and the Republican smear machine.
Ron doesn't say it like someone who's just ignorant, he says it like someone who KNOWS that she was JUST Clinton's wife. It's insulting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't use the word "just" for any First Lady. I don't think that being the First Lady gives her any special qualifications for being President, though it would give her unique insights. I do think that some of the things that she did while First Lady might add to her list of qualifications (though not, I believe, in an entirely good way) just as her time in the Senate and her experience as a lawyer.
I don't, for example, think that Mary Todd Lincoln would have been a good president. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, come on, what office did she hold? Was she in the cabinet? Did she head up any committees? She did not just claim that she got experience of some vague sort as first lady and as wife of the governor before that. She said she has been "producing change for 35 years." What did she ever change?
I have observed more than one network commentator collapse into hysterical laughter when citing Sen. Clinton's claim that she has been "producing change for 35 years."
Of all the claims anyone has made on the campaign trail, that one has got to be the silliest.
[ January 22, 2008, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't you a Republican? And even if not, who says that all change comes at the level of the Federal government?
I'm not doing the work for you on this one, but actually read up on her life and history before you smear her, otherwise I think you just look like another Republican buffoon trying to smear her for the sake of the party line.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked a simple question. What office has she held? Can't you give me one example of what change she could have made? She hasn't.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Participants here have gone a long way without using epithets upon one another, Lyrhawn. There is no reason to begin now.
Politics is always HARD, even from the inside; maybe especially from the inside. None of us has an inside view of what is going on. All we can do is make guesses based upon memories&studies of previous campaigns applied to press releases designed primarily to mislead. Political reporting&analyses mostly fit within a range from lazy to sycophantic. Due to that lack of detailed-enough-to-be-reliable information, all of us outsiders are treated by "political professionals" as if we were buffoons.
eg FredThompson has announced that he has dropped out of the race. I would have thought that with his success in SouthCarolina at drawing votes away from Huckabee, McCain/Romney/etc supporters would keep the Thompson campaign afloat until at least after Florida*, and less probably until after TsunamiTuesday. Now I'm making excuses for myself: "Thompson's mother has become seriously ill, so a weak chance at the Presidency and a stronger play for the VicePresidency is no longer worth the time&effort to him. And thus being a good player for the RepublicanNationalCommittee by taking out Huckabee has dropped off his agenda." But I was still wrong, a buffoon if you like.
Clinton has gone after Obama with "I am the one with experience. I am the agent for change most likely to succeed." Should Clinton win the Democratic nomination, RonLambert is asking the exact same question that Republican operatives will be planting throughout the GeneralElection campaign: What experience? At losing? Clinton has yet to give a single example of herself successfully pushing Democratic-core legislation through the approval process. And she doesn't want to take credit for the IranWar/etc.
The Republicans ain't gonna be nearly as nice as Obama**. So how is she gonna answer the constant&continuous Republican hammering during the GeneralElection campaign?
* Where a fourth or even a weak third place showing would seriously diminish the viability of Huckabee's candidacy. With Thompson dropping out, and Giuliani pinning his hopes on pulling votes that would otherwise go to McCain or Romney, Huckabee is almost guaranteed a very strong third place at worst, and has as good a chance at placing first as any of the other candidates. While one might think that Huckabee's stronger-than-his-opponents stance against illegal immigration would weaken him in the Latino community, and thus in Florida overall, Cubans automaticly become legal immigrants the instant they touch American soil. And thus immigration has less of a "one issue voter" impact than it does in other states. If someone else wins the Republican nomination, Huckabee is the strongest contender for the VicePresidential candidate slot. And, provided he wants it, gains a MAJOR position within the RNC (for a surrogate if not himself) if the Presidential nominee chooses someone else as his running mate.
** Obama learned the lesson of what to avoid from Gore's fratricidal 2000Primary campaign. Meanwhile, Clinton is so intent on getting the nomination that her campaign has been injecting race and gender as wedge issues at every opportunity.
quote:Should Clinton win the Democratic nomination, RonLambert is asking the exact same question that Republican operatives will be planting throughout the GeneralElection campaign: What experience? At losing?
Hey, I know my question hasn't come from any central committee. Clinton volunteered a characterization of herself. I don't think it's sinister to ask her to back that up.
I can see where working on the Nixon impeachment was decent experience. She wasn't any kind of lead prosecutor, but she was involved, and that's fine. She was an intellectual property lawyer who did some pro bono work during her husband's governancy, and she's noted for breaking many glass ceilings. I guess that's where she sees herself going.
Mainly, I think her definition of change is fundamentally different from Obama's. For her, simply being the first woman president would be her big change- as she was the first woman to partner in her firm, serve on Walmart's Board, and be a Senator from New York. Obama is talking about a change in the way Washington works, and that is what people like me are responsive to. I don't expect him to change things that can't and shouldn't be changed, but the partisanship that has resulted in a default state of filibuster by house rules could be changed.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Hey, I know my question hasn't come from any central committee."
Which was also meant to be my point about Ron Lambert's: Clinton herself has begged for the question by the way she has characterized her qualifications.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question about Sen. Clinton's extravagent claim is a natural, logical one that would occur to anyone. Being a lawyer is not conducive to producing any significant change--at least none that would occur to most people. Being the first woman on the board of Wal-Mart, etc., makes HER a change, but does not necessarily PRODUCE change. It is certainly not what anyone expects when you are talking to them about producing change.
I also assume at some time, if Sen. Obama should win the nomination, or be tapped as a veep running mate, it will be brought out that his middle name is Hussein. That may mean nothing substantive, but causing any amount of ridicule or sinister association to adhere to a candidate for any reason will cost him or her at least ten points in the polls.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't tell if Ron Lambert is a fair representative of the Great American Middle Class White Male or if he is a caricature.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said before, Irami Osei-Frimpong: Participants here have gone a long way without using epithets upon one another. There is no reason to begin now.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's about as good a representative of the Great American Middle Class White Male as you are of the American Black Male.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see where Hussein is so much more outlandish than either Barak or Obama. Though now I wonder what was in that "the real Barak Obama" email that I tossed without reading. Perhaps that was the extent of it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like Ron Paul came in second again. This time to McCain, rather than to Romney. Did anyone happen to see how much he got?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, the email that has been going around about "the Real Barack Obama" gives his full name for shock value, and makes a big deal out of his family having some members who were Muslim at one time, then claims he is himself Muslim, and refused to be sworn into the Senate using a Bible, and instead insisted on being sworn in using a Koran, and that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The bit about the Koran used in swearing in was true of Congressman Keith Ellison, not Obama, who is a Christian and has been associated with Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ since the mid-1980's, long before he contemplated a political career. He also has no hesitation in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
My guess is that some covert Clintonistas are sending this stuff out.
If I were running for president and my middle name were Judas, I think I would mention it now and then, making light of it by saying something like "but not the son of Simon." The idea would be to defuse the potential for defamation by pre-empting the defamers.
Oh, and Irami Osei-Frimpong, to quote Yogi, I am, of course, smarter than the average bear.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Hillary isn't going to bring it up, since I am not even sure her legal name includes Clinton. She was Hillary Rodham until Bill lost the Governorship once and was recampainging.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
35 years ago, Hillary was in law school. I find the claims of 35 years of experience disingenuous at best.
-----
LDS voters, while being 7% of the state of Nevada, made up 25% of the delegates from the Republican caucuses. 95% of the LDS delegates voted for Romney.
Wow. Talk about identity politics.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:LDS voters, while being 7% of the state of Nevada, made up 25% of the delegates from the Republican caucuses. 95% of the LDS delegates voted for Romney.
Wow. Talk about identity politics.
I hope Reid says something about this. I know Romney is LDS, but aren't the Saints at least a bit worried about his pro-business, to the exclusion of social services and the environment, ethic? It could be that Romney was the best of a bad Republican bunch. I hope more LDS would vote against Romney because of their religious beliefs, but I hope a lot of things.
As to this:
quote:I can't tell if Ron Lambert is a fair representative of the Great American Middle Class White Male or if he is a caricature.
There is an American animal species who decides legal and public priorities, and sets religious, economic, and cultural norms. That creature also elects Presidents. I know it's not me; I'm just trying to figure out if it's Ron.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is an American animal species who decides legal and public priorities, and sets religious, economic, and cultural norms.
I think it is your embrace of this flawed premise that cripples your understanding of human interaction, Irami.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:LDS voters, while being 7% of the state of Nevada, made up 25% of the delegates from the Republican caucuses. 95% of the LDS delegates voted for Romney.
Wow. Talk about identity politics.
I hope Reid says something about this. I know Romney is LDS, but aren't the Saints at least a bit worried about his pro-business, to the exclusion of social services and the environment, ethic?
Probably not, since most Mormons are also pro-business to the exclusion of social services and the environment.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not pro-business to the exclusion of the environment. And he did miss 5% of the LDS vote. I think of the remaining 95%, there are probably a number who disagree with him on one thing or another, but between him, Ron Paul, and McCain, Romney isn't such a puzzling choice.
Since this thread is kind of long now, and most people joining in aren't going to read the whole thing, I support McCain mainly because of his more realistic immigration policy.
Social services are a tough question, though.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First polls out of Florida without Fred Thompson show Romney and Giuliani splitting the loose change. Link Wait, these numbers are quite strange.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
