I suppose. When it really comes to it they can dodge ANY question. I didn't really word the second two questions as well as I probably would have if I'd really sat down to think about it, it was just off the top of my head. But your shortened versions leave just as much room for him to stonewall and move on. Really ANY question does. But I think the more detail you put into the question, the more damaging it looks when they try and stonewall and move on without addressing the real question.
quote:Sen. McCain, do you believe that oil companies, each of which has had record profits every year for the past five years, should continue to receive massive tax breaks?
That, I think, is a good question. It's very, very specific, and requires very little background to fully understand it, and really boils down to a yes or no answer.
I don't think long or short answers are automatically better. The value of the question is rooted in how it's phrased and what the content is, not the length.
Sterling's cut down question I think is a perfect example of that. Because he cut right to the heart of the matter, that's actually a really good question, but it's so ridiculously easy to sidestep and move on. All he has to say is "tax cuts spur innovation and grow the economy which gives us the money to pay for things we need," and he's on to the next person.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This sort of situation did come up at one point, although I can't find the video of it now. Somebody asked McCain about waterboarding, and began his question with a few facts (About a Japanese military officer sentenced some years hard labor for using the technique during WWII). McCain dodged the question by ragging on the guy for his little speechification and then moved on to the next question without providing much of an answer to whether he thought waterboarding was appropriate or not. I thought the story was totally appropriate to the question too, and it would have been only 10 seconds if he hadn't been interrupted if I recall correctly. Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're not allowed to ask candidates to defend their positions?
Wow, mischaracterization much?
I don't think so, no.
To clarify, because it seems necessary, no one has advocated the position that "We're not allowed to ask candidates to defend their positions."
But I think you already knew that, Lyrhawn. If not, then I wonder how on earth you don't, since several people have posed alternative ways to question candidates about their positions.
It's clear that questioning candidates about their position was not the sine quo non of the criticism.
quote:McCain dodged the question by ragging on the guy for his little speechification and then moved on to the next question without providing much of an answer to whether he thought waterboarding was appropriate or not.
McCain has answered this questions specifically and repeatedly.
quote:
quote:Sen. McCain, do you believe that oil companies, each of which has had record profits every year for the past five years, should continue to receive massive tax breaks?
That, I think, is a good question. It's very, very specific, and requires very little background to fully understand it, and really boils down to a yes or no answer.
Actually, it doesn't. If one answers that question with a simple "yes," then one has left out very salient pieces of the issue:
1) The tax break is not oil-company specific, but rather is available to many types of domestic manufacturing.
2) Oil industry profits as a percentage of revenues are comparable to many, and less than some, of the industries that receive the tax break.
Anyone with any business asking that question should already know this. Which means I'm suspicious of the good-faith intent of anyone who asks it that way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm interested by this "declare victory May 20th " tack that Obama is evidently taking. I don't know if it's just a leak or what, but it's going to make Clinton hoppin' mad. Okay, apparently it came from the horse's mouth, though it is being spun a bit.
Holy backpedal, Batman:
quote:Clinton vowed no surrender, telling supporters in West Virginia their voices deserved to be heard when the state holds its primary next Tuesday.
"This is a little bit like deja vu all over again," she said of the media critics, adding in a statement of intent for the general election: "I'm running to be president of all 50 states."
posted
I thought Hillary was going to be the president of California, Texas, New York and Pennsylvania, since only big states really matter.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hillary uses "Hillary" in her campaign materials. I think referring to her as the same is fine.
Threads, I doubt he has voted yet. The superdelegates who have not declared one way or another have yet to cast a vote.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I guess there's no way to win with what to call the democratic second runner. If you call her Hillary, it's sexist. If you call her Clinton, it's dredging up the past. If you call her HRC, you're being dismissive.
I sounded like my mom to myself just then.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that he could. I doubt that he did - I haven't seen any news item that says that he did, and his vote counts more later. Namely, his alleged state of Switzerland is too valuable at the moment.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had to make myself stop calling her Hillary and switch to Clinton, but, I rarely type Hillary these days, and I always try and slip in a Pres. before Bush too. I rarely put Senator before the senators names, but I don't feel bad about it. But I don't think Hillary is necessarily automatically offensive, I just thought if I was going to call one by his last name, I should do it with both.
Dag -
I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you on this one. I don't think my question was rude or at all out of bounds. Clearly you do, though you seem to have a sliding bar on what is and isn't acceptable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you on this one.
Which is perfectly fine, assuming you're no longer asserting that I oppose "ask[ing] candidates to defend their positions."
quote:Clearly you do, though you seem to have a sliding bar on what is and isn't acceptable.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. My bar is pretty constant. Just because I didn't fully articulate it in the response to something I consider well beyond it doesn't mean it's "sliding."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Hillary uses "Hillary" in her campaign materials. I think referring to her as the same is fine.
I know that she does, and that that makes it officially okay to do so, but it still rubs me the wrong way whenever I hear somebody do it. To me it implies a degree of familiarity that doesn't actually exist. When I hear people refer to her as "Hillary", I feel exactly the same way as I do when I hear people refer to Card as "Orson", or when people who aren't actually on a first name basis with him refer to him as "Scott".
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Lyrhawn's question was out of bounds other than being ineffective. But I think in a real life situation he wouldn't have read all that verbatim. But I'm just a regular person.
If there were an assumption wrapped in the question, hopefully the candidate latches on to that with something like "that's an excellent question. Let me address the part where you said blah blah". I mean, unless the point of the question is to be so long winded that the candidate loses track of what you're saying and only answers the obvious part. If that's your intent, its an evil question.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Edwards isn't a superdelegate. He's no longer a Senator, and isn't one of the party appointed superdelegates. It's mentioned in this CNN article.
His endorsement is important because of his pledged delegates and because it might influence others, but his vote as a citizen Tuesday was the only vote he gets.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I see what your problem was with the way I worded that before, sorry. I'll clarify, you don't have a problem with candidates being asked to defend their positions, just with certain methods of doing so.
I said sliding bar because your initial objection to my questions was that they were overlong. Specifically you said
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you didn't want to actually ask questions, just give a little speech with a "question" on the end.
and then later said:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In that case, it's a speech with a question. But it's a fairly phrased question. It's still clear that the intent is to make a point more than to elicit information from the candidate. But if the format allows for lengthy questions, I have no objection.
Clearly you don't have a problem with a question preceded by a little prefacing, you have a problem with the content. I guess it isn't so much a sliding bar as it is your curt response that doesn't fully represent your actual problem with what I said. Like some of our previous arguments, this probably would have been much shorter and to the point if you had gotten right to your point immediately.
I guess I should also say that, really I agree with some of your problems with the format. You don't like assigning positions to someone that they don't hold and then asking them to defend that made up position. I don't like that either. Where we disagree I think is that you seem to think that is what I did, and I think that's a mischaracterization of what I said.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't think Lyrhawn's question was out of bounds other than being ineffective. But I think in a real life situation he wouldn't have read all that verbatim. But I'm just a regular person.
If there were an assumption wrapped in the question, hopefully the candidate latches on to that with something like "that's an excellent question. Let me address the part where you said blah blah". I mean, unless the point of the question is to be so long winded that the candidate loses track of what you're saying and only answers the obvious part. If that's your intent, its an evil question.
Any question that the candidate doesn't actually want to answer is ineffective. If they don't want to answer, they'll move on. I don't know if I would have read that verbatim or not, like I said I just came up with those off the top of my head, and in rereading them a couple times, the question I most likely would have asked, the first would, probably would've been two sentences shorter. And I could've read it in maybe 20 seconds. If 20 seconds is overlong and convoluted, then I think we just disagree on how long a good question needs to be.
It's framing a question then answering a question. If he dodges, then I think it makes him look worse for retreating in the face of facts. I'd rather he NOT dodge though and actually answer the question. The point isn't to smear, it's to get him to address actual criticisms of his policies.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clearly you don't have a problem with a question preceded by a little prefacing, you have a problem with the content.
I have a problem with the content and with the manner of prefacing. I expanded on those later in the discussion.
I also had a problem with the way you characterized your questions. It was clear from the questions that what you wanted to do was lecture McCain about why his position is wrong. That's the part I chose to comment on initially. I added the rest later.
quote:You don't like assigning positions to someone that they don't hold and then asking them to defend that made up position. I don't like that either.
That's only half my problem with it. The other half is taking all the premises upon which you base your opposing conclusion and presenting them as "givens." Very few - maybe none - of those are givens to McCain, and I think you know that.
In addition, by using the "given" construct, you implied very strongly that McCain does accept those as givens. That's where the assignment of positions comes in.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was only explaining why I still refer to him as "Senator", not his superdelegate-ness. Superdelegateosity. Ness.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also had a problem with the way you characterized your questions. It was clear from the questions that what you wanted to do was lecture McCain about why his position is wrong. That's the part I chose to comment on initially. I added the rest later.
Yeah, because THAT style of commenting on posts has gotten you such quick results in the past.
quote:That's only half my problem with it. The other half is taking all the premises upon which you base your opposing conclusion and presenting them as "givens." Very few - maybe none - of those are givens to McCain, and I think you know that.
In addition, by using the "given" construct, you implied very strongly that McCain does accept those as givens. That's where the assignment of positions comes in.
Get specific. What specifically have I presented as a given that you think isn't true? What have I said that assumes a position McCain doesn't hold?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm interested by this "declare victory May 20th " tack that Obama is evidently taking. I don't know if it's just a leak or what, but it's going to make Clinton hoppin' mad. Okay, apparently it came from the horse's mouth, though it is being spun a bit.
[/QUOTE]Judging from "the situation on the ground" here in Oregon, I think Obama will do quite well in the primary on the 20th, and afterward his lead will be even more unbeatable. He's going to be in town in a few hours, and already campus is clogged up.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't actually plan to declare victory, just celebrate having the majority of pledged delegates. Clinton will bring up Florida and Michigan again at that point. I wonder if it will go anywhere.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: He didn't actually plan to declare victory, just celebrate having the majority of pledged delegates. Clinton will bring up Florida and Michigan again at that point. I wonder if it will go anywhere.
Nope. Michigan Dems have already settled on a plan, subject to approval, that nets Clinton a whopping eight delegates. I imagine Florida's plan will be somewhat similar. The two states won't even come close to the necessary number of delegates she would need. They'll split the remaining delegates probably, which will leave Obama with a commanding lead going into June when the Supers will finish this thing off.
There's no plausible or realistic scenario, involving Supers or Michigan or Florida, where Clinton somehow pulls ahead.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It'll be an ugly fall, and double depressing because McCain is so pathetic.
Example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/mccain-camp-insists-obama_n_100963.html McCain complains Obama is "using the age card" by saying McCain is "losing his bearings"... Do they expect people not to eventually see the pattern of him being utterly incompetent and ignorant about important things, like the difference between Sunni and Shiite? If not being able to keep that straight isn't losing his bearings.........
I don't think McCain's pretending to simultaneously be the maverick his reputation from 2000 proclaims and the loyal bush-supporting Republican for the 25-percenters who are still in that camp.
[ May 09, 2008, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, because THAT style of commenting on posts has gotten you such quick results in the past.
Whatever.
I accomplished exactly what I wanted to accomplish with my initial post. I accomplished other things with my subsequent post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So long as you're happy. Rest assured, I'll think twice before engaging you in one of these discussions again. If you'd just say what you're going to say up front, it'd avoid a dozen subsequent posts that clarify and further clarify. Instead you make clipped off snarky little comments that leave me to guess at your meaning, and once that starts, the wheels come off pretty quickly afterwards, and far too much effort is expended on my part in trying to figure out what your real problem is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rest assured, I'll think twice before engaging you in one of these discussions again.
I didn't attempt to engage you. I simply commented when I thought the echo chamber here was getting too loud.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said you did, though you have a funny way of not engaging someone. I engaged you because you took a snarky, curt potshot at me and were mischaracterizing my statements.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it a foregone conclusion that Obama will choose Hillary as his running mate, or are there other serious contenders?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously? I'd rate the odds of Clinton being Obama's running mate at, I don't know, 10,000 to 1? First of all, I think she'd say no. She'd go back to the Senate and work her way up the ladder there. She'll be majority leader by the time Obama leaves office in eight years before she will sit in the OEOB for eight years twiddling her thumbs.
There are a few names being tossed around for Obama. I've seen Jim Webb's name tossed around, as he would give Obama some serious foreign policy heft and also help in the swing state of Virginia, but I think this is less likely as he's a two year junior senator. Though I do think there's a balance to electing a liberal Democratic president and basically a blue dog Democrat as the VP, from a southern state, and he probably has a decent shot of succeeding Obama after he leaves office. He's young, a hotshot and a force on the campaign trail. Tim Kaine, the Democratic governor of Virginia would be able to replace him with a Democrat to fill the seat until it was up for reelection in four years.
Other than that, there's Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. She's a very popular governor with a great record of cutting waste. TIME magazine has named her one of the five best governors in the country. She's an older white women, which might help balance out some of the demographics, and despite her views on capital punishment and abortion she still has great appeal to midwestern and farm states, many of which are usually Republican givens. Besides, she's term limited and can't serve past 2010. She's my odds on favorite to get the VP spot, and despite her somewhat soporific delivery if the Democratic rebuttal to Pres. Bush's SOTU this year, I think she is the best package. She's endorsed Obama since late January too. If not, I expect she'll run for Sen. Brownback's Senate seat in 2010, and I expect she'll likely win it too.
I suppose John Edwards is a candidate for the VP spot. I've said before that I probably prefer him as an AG pick, but he brings a lot to the table as well. He's strong among working class white men, strong in the vulnerable carolinas, has a great energy and charisma on the campaign trail, and in eight years he'll still be of a perfect age to run as Obama's successor. Plus everyone already knows him and his unfavorables are very low. Kerry didn't lose because of Edwards, that's for sure.
Even less likely but on the list of names floating around? Janet Nepalitano, the Democratic governor of I think Nevada. She likes to spend, like Obama wants to, but she's also got a reputation as someone who keeps her budgets in check and slashes wasteful spending. I suppose Wesley Clark and Joe Biden are on a list somewhere, but I think Webb would get in long before Clark did.
There are probably other names out there too, but those are the big ones I think.
Edit to add: And Bill Richardson. He adds extensive foreign policy heft, he shores up a possibly hesitant hispanic vote, he has cred out west where the Democrats hope to flip some red states blue and like Sebelius he's term limited, so he doesn't have anything better to do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a sinking feeling that it might end up being Clinton, as the punditocracy have been pushing the "unity ticket" idea pretty hard lately. It's a terrible idea, though. Not only are Hillary's selling points opposite that of Obama's (and not in a good way), but she herself would strongly drive Republican turnout. In addition, assuming they manage to win the election, I just can't see the two of them working well together in the White House. Electoral math aside, they'd make a terrible team. It'd be Bartlet versus Hoynes turned real, but even worse.
I think Webb would be a great VP, but he's needed where he is right now. Same goes for Tim Kaine. His predecessor, Mark Warner, would've been fantastic, but he's in the middle of his own campaign for the Senate.
Edwards would be a terrible VP pick. He offers nothing to the ticket beyond what Obama himself brings (youth, message of change, etc), excepting perhaps a more populist economic message. Not to mention that he already tried once, and didn't deliver much to Kerry. That said, I think he'd be great as AG.
Richardson sounds great on paper, but his performance as a presidential candidate gives me pause. Look up "gaffe" in the dictionary, and you'll find his picture. Still, while we're making up an imaginary Obama Cabinet, I think Richardson would make a superb Secretary of State.
Personally, I think Obama's best option is Kathleen Sebelius. She's basically Hillary Clinton minus the baggage, and is a popular Democratic governor in a solidly red state to boot. It's unlikely that she would manage to swing Kansas over to the blue column in the general election, but I think she'd definitely make a difference in the purple states. She's got significant executive experience, and she has that same aura of "post-partisanship" as Obama himself.
Napolitano could work out as well, for similar reasons.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really, really don't think it'll be Clinton. I mean she's a possibility, and she's probably on the short list, but I'd be a tiny bit surprised if he asked, and I'd be shocked if she said yes. I think in January it was likely. In June, after the rancor and bad blood there is between them? don't see it. The DNC might try and force her on him, but I think he'll say no.
Webb isn't really needed that much where he is. Kaine will appoint a replacement and Webb would be fine going on his merry way. Kaine on the other hand is very much needed where he is, and I wouldn't even consider him a candidat. Mark Warner would also be an excellent choice if he wasn't running for a Senate seat that he has a great chance of winning, flipping another Red seat Blue in Virginia. He's too important in that race, there's no one to run in his place that has a chance of beating Gilmore, who is a very popular former Republican governor. Warner would have been a better choice than Webb in some ways, given his popularity, but Webb has Defense skills and experience that Warner lacks.
Edwards is a fantastic campaigner, and some of the people Obama is having a problem wooing, working class white voters for example, are right up Edwards' alley. His populist message might be exactly what Obama needs if he can't shake this elitist thing. That being said, I agree. Much better AG choice.
Also agree on Richardson and SecState, maybe even SecEnergy again.
Agree on Sebelius, I think she is probably the best choice. I think she'd have a halfway decent chance of flipping Kansas, but she'd probably have a much bigger effect on Missouri, Iowa, Ohio and Indiana.
Also I think one must give VPs a more serious look this year than in previous ones. There's a very real chance that McCain could die in office. It's maybe not likely, but he's the oldest candidate ever and has a lot of prior health problems. His VP candidate will get extra attention. And I think that Obama more than any recent candidate or president bears a serious risk of assasination. So to a lesser degree, but still more than many past candidates, his choice will also matter a bit more. These have to be people we'd be okay with to run the country. That's I think why McCain choosing his former running mates is a bad idea, they all come with extreme baggage. He has better choices like Sanford or Crist. Obama has a lot of great choices. Sebelius is for the moment my personal favorite.
I've even seen Gary Locke's name floated. He's the Asian American former governor of Washington, previously considered a young rising star in the party until he declined to seek reelection to spend more time with his family (which is also why Kaine and Warner I think have declined the idea of running). He's beyond the fringe of dark horse candidates though. Like I said, no shortage of names floating about.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So my 16 year old brother and I were discussing the election last night and my mother made the comment that she'd vote for McCain if Clinton wasn't nominated because "Obama seems like a stupid guy." I pressed her a bit, and she claimed he just doesn't seem like he knows what he's doing and he's untrustworthy. I asked her what she thought of Clinton's stubbornness costing the party the White House, and the reply was that "she deserves to win, I'm glad she's not giving up. It's a good example to set for women who've thought they'd never get where men are."
posted
She's not any more wrong that that 40% of blacks who have jumped onto the Obama wagon now that they think he can win. (I'll expand that to say they prefer him because they have something in common with him.)
I think there is an outside chance Hillary would be VP, especially if she thinks it's likely Obama will be shot. But I think it's likelier she's campaigning for 2012 at this point.
quote:I never said you did, though you have a funny way of not engaging someone. I engaged you because you took a snarky, curt potshot at me and were mischaracterizing my statements.
First, I didn't say I wouldn't engage you. I said my initial post wasn't an attempt to do so.
quote:I engaged you because you took a snarky, curt potshot at me and were mischaracterizing my statements.
quote:But I think it's likelier she's campaigning for 2012 at this point.
SNL made that joke tonight.
quote:No, I didn't.
I'm sure you don't see it that way, but that's how I see it. You clearly misinterpreted what I was saying, and I think you were implying that I was intentionally trying to paint McCain in a bad light. You assume a great deal about my intentions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Oddly enough, Senators do retain their title after they are out of office. Presidents do not.
At least according to Miss Manners.
At one time at least, this was not the case. I think MM is wrong. It seems to have been the convention of late to say "former President" when announcing a former President. But I distinctly remember reading that there had been a shift at one point away from referring to a former President with their previous non-presidential title. At that point, I want to say over a century ago, the convention became the retention of the title of President when addressing the person, and "former President," when referring to them.
Else, we would not being calling Bill Clinton "former President," but instead "Governor?" Where does it end? Former Governor? Or just Bill? Billy?
I'd like to know what it says on his stationary.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think you were implying that I was intentionally trying to paint McCain in a bad light.
You mean you weren't? I guess that helps- though it really sounded like you were. But I certainly have run into similar problems expressing myself clearly before, particularly in writing on the internet.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I presented McCain's argument with a lot of facts that he tends to leave out. I wasn't intentionally painting him in a bad light, and if it looked bad, that's his fault, not mine. All three of those were perfectly valid questions with verifiable facts with a sprinkling of informed opinion mixed in, and I've said so where it exists.
When a politician stands up to say "I support this thing!" And it turns out that thing has a dozen things wrong with it and someone points all those things out even if the politician doesn't know of those things or like those things, then pointing them out is not intentionally painting the politician in a bad light, and it's not assigning positions or beliefs to him.
Sometimes things just are what they are, and all the wishing in the world on the part of the politician can't make it so.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Okay, apparently it came from the horse's mouth, though it is being spun a bit.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
