Paul Krugman isn't liking Obama's position on Social Security:
Paul Krugman wrote:Played for a sucker
Full Article
What does the mud look like when it is slung? So far from everything I've read and viewed (I didn't see the debate live but have seen pieces of video on youtube) hasn't looked like mud, it looked like disagreement.
I'm really interested in nailing this down so I can understand exactly what it is people considered the "mud". Would appreciate you going into more explanation, Au.
For me, the high point came when Obama dumped the garbage can over Blitzer's head. What an inane man he is.
blatham wrote:For me, the high point came when Obama dumped the garbage can over Blitzer's head. What an inane man he is.
I haven't seen the debate yet, but won't miss this chance to defend Obama against Blatham. While it's certainly inane to dump a garbage can over anybody's head, I emphatically make an exception for Wolf Blitzer's.
I liked his reference to In-And-Out burgers regarding immigrant workers.
I didn't watch it and haven't read the transcript yet. Just found it, to read it, and here it is if anyone else is interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15debate-transcript.html
It's only 42 pages.
Thomas wrote:blatham wrote:For me, the high point came when Obama dumped the garbage can over Blitzer's head. What an inane man he is.
I haven't seen the debate yet, but won't miss this chance to defend Obama against Blatham. While it's certainly inane to dump a garbage can over anybody's head, I emphatically make an exception for Wolf Blitzer's.
A fine example of the pitfalls awaiting anyone who seeks variety in tone and pace through the use of pronouns.
The "inane man" was Blitzer.
Oh come on:
Quote:MR. EDWARDS: Well, can I say first, nobody on this stage is perfect, and that certainly includes me. (Cross talk.) And I don't claim perfection, far from it.
What I would say is that the issue is whether we can have a president that can restore trust for the American people in the president of the United States. (Applause.) Because I think this president has destroyed that trust, and I think there are fair questions to be asked of all of us, including Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton says she will end the war. She also says she will continue to keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans. But when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney. (Applause.)
On the issue of Social Security, she said, standing beside me on the stage, that she would not do anything about the cap on Social Security taxes. And she has said privately to people, because it's been reported in the press, that, in fact, she would consider raising that cap. And the most important issue is, she says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt, corrupted against the interest of most Americans and corrupted -- (cheers, applause).
MR. BLITZER: All right.
MR. EDWARDS: Let me -- and corrupted for a very small, very powerful, very well-financed --
MR. BLITZER: We're going to --
MR. EDWARDS: So we have fundamental differences.
MR. BLITZER: We're going to get all of these issues, including energy and Iran and everything else.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I've just been personally attacked again.
That's a
personal attack? Give me a break. What was she just doing to Obama, saying that he didn't "step up" with his health plan, by "leaving 15 million Americans out"? I don't think it was untoward (though I'm glad he responded and pointed out that all of those people CAN go ahead and buy insurance he'll make sure is more affordable, it's just that he won't FORCE them to), but was that a "personal attack?" She was questioning his policies and approach.
Geesh.
I won't keep doing this as I read the whole debate, but I didn't yet see when I posted the above that she followed up the "personal attack" claim with a "throwing mud" claim:
Quote:SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, I respect all of my colleagues on this stage -- (laughter) -- and, you know, we're Democrats and we're trying to nominate the very best person we can to win. And I don't mind taking hits on my record, on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook because what I -- (cheers, applause) -- what I believe is important is that we put forth what we stand for. I have been active for 35 years. The American people know where I stand.
Again,
come on. What mud was thrown?
Butrflynet
Instead of attacking each other and playing into the republicans hands. What the public wants to hear from each candidate is what they intend to do and why we should elect "you" as president.It would seem that the rest of the field understands this While Edwards and Obama are acting like attack dogs.
There was no mud, they simply and rightly highlighted her inability to lead.
Of course she's going to call that 'mud' to try and get the dogs off her trail.
blatham wrote:A fine example of the pitfalls awaiting anyone who seeks variety in tone and pace through the use of pronouns.
Nope, I misunderstood you on purpose. This is actually a fine exmple of the libertarian slime machine, and its mission to discredit A2K liberals of good standing.
blatham wrote:The "inane man" was Blitzer.
I know. And I believe you, based on over five years of Blitzer-watching.
Actually, I like that Hillary Clinton is being such a weenie about being criticized. Maybe she will face some backlash over it, and maybe it will bring Obama and Edwards within striking distance again.
Yeah...that's pretty clean mud.
I suspect she went in with the prime purpose of turning around the media narrative which had formed after the last debate..."she got knocked down". They would have spent a lot of time thinking about how to do that. Apparently, they concluded that a strong attack was in order any time a negative was thrown her way. They probably read this correctly because the subsequent commentary that I saw was of the "She's back!" sort (I think Gergen actually said exactly that).
Did anyone else get the notion that she was helped significantly by supporters in the crowd? I missed the first hour but the commentary at the end suggested that her opponents began to temper their attacks when the crowd responded poorly to such.
Which leads to the prediction that Rush and others will continue to claim that Hillary's campaign threatened Blitzer's children and will add today that the audience were all Hillary plants.
Thomas wrote:blatham wrote:A fine example of the pitfalls awaiting anyone who seeks variety in tone and pace through the use of pronouns.
Nope, I misunderstood you on purpose. This is actually a fine exmple of the libertarian slime machine, and its mission to discredit A2K liberals of good standing.
blatham wrote:The "inane man" was Blitzer.
I know. And I believe you, based on over five years of Blitzer-watching.
Actually, I like that Hillary Clinton is being such a weenie about being criticized. Maybe she will face some backlash over it, and maybe it will bring Obama and Edwards within striking distance again.
You libertarians are just wayyyyyy to tricky for me.
Re your last paragraph, I don't think that's the way it will work (see my previous post).
And a typically smart piece by Yglesias..
Quote:Between Friends
16 Nov 2007 08:12 am
Thinking about Wolf Blitzer's atrocious performance as moderator and Tim Russert's slicker, better-executed version of the same BS at the previous Democratic debate, is one reminder that at least one reason the GOP contenders haven't gotten this kind of roasting is that I feel like I've seen them debate on Fox News a lot. Meanwhile, though I wouldn't normally spend a lot of time praising a Republican propaganda outlet, this actually seems like a very wise and appropriate strategy. A primary campaign, after all, is an inside-the-family argument about the direction of a political party and a political movement. It's very appropriate, under the circumstances, for the debate to be moderate by someone who's part of the family and can try to maintain a tone and focus designed to appeal to the broader family that's making the decisions.
Blitzer and Russert, by contrast, aren't trying to help advance an intra-family argument. Instead, they're trying to get further up the totem poll of "respectable" DC media, where you prove your chops through relentless hostility to substantive discussion about issues.
Obviously, since there's no Fox News of the left, Democrats can't directly adopt the GOP strategy. But it has some real merit to it. I'd much rather see a debate moderated by am undecided progressive who's trying to learn more -- and help fellow progressives learn more -- about the candidates for the nomination than by a cynical-yet-ignorant DC talking head with a nose for blood. Since the primary season now last over six million months, the candidates all have plenty of opportunity to spar with brain-dead television interviewers outside of the debates.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/
"The American people don't give a darn about any of this stuff that's going on up here," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, going on to tout his own experience.
"They're worried about whether or not their child is going to run into a drug dealer on the way to school. They're worried about whether or not they're going to be able to pay for their mortgage," he said, "whether they're going to keep their job. And they're worried about whether their son in the National Guard's going to get killed in Iraq."
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut agreed the tone of the evening wouldn't solve the nation's problems. "We want a Democratic candidate who can unite our party. And I think if we waste time on the shrillness of this debate, then we lose the American people," he said.
Some in the audience reacted with boos when Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards mentioned Mrs. Clinton.
Early in the debate, Mr. Obama jumped on Mrs. Clinton's triangulation on whether illegal aliens should get driver's licenses, saying: "It took not just that debate but two more weeks before we could [get] a clear answer, in terms of where her position was."
But later, Mr. Obama was tripped up on the issue, saying it isn't so simple.
"The problem we have here is not driver's licenses. Undocumented workers do not come here to drive," he said. "Instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let's focus on actually solving the problem that ... the Bush administration had done nothing about."
Asked again whether he supports or opposes licenses, he said: "I am not proposing that that's what we do," a nearly identical sidestep to what Mrs. Clinton did last month.
"This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer," Mr. Blitzer said, prompting laughter from the audience.
Clinton adviser Mark Penn later told reporters that he was "surprised Obama didn't come to the debate with an answer to that one."
Obama adviser David Axelrod dismissed the license question as a "a phony debate."
"Obviously, he's not going to advance it as a proposal," he said.
Mr. Axelrod also highlighted that Mrs. Clinton flip-flopped on the issue.
She answered simply "No" when asked whether she supported licenses for illegals even though she said she initially supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to allow the licenses.
Nearly every Democrat on stage could not give a simple yes or no answer to the licenses question.
After Mr. Edwards said illegals should not get licenses, the Clinton campaign sent a fact-check noting that he was in favor of the plan in January 2004. Republicans also responded, suggesting that the topic will continue to be red hot in a general election.
When immigration came up again later, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the only Hispanic candidate, said: "We should stop demonizing immigrants."
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio was the only candidate who would not agree to support the eventual Democratic nominee should he or she not win the nomination in 2008. He said he only would support that Democrat "if they oppose war as an instrument of policy."
Mrs. Clinton holds a 28-point lead over Mr. Obama in a new CNN poll of likely Nevada Democratic caucusgoers.
It was the eighth official Democratic debate, held at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, located in sprawling Clark County, where more than 70 percent of the state's population resides.
It's no surprise Obama slipped on the same banana peel...we already know he isn't as sharp as Hillary nor does he have a machine behind him as well oiled. Neither one are natural leaders.
Integrity, popular or not;
Quote:Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio was the only candidate who would not agree to support the eventual Democratic nominee should he or she not win the nomination in 2008. He said he only would support that Democrat "if they oppose war as an instrument of policy."
