Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:20 am
maporsche wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:



50% would vote for him, but only 37% think he can win....


You need to read the poll question again. Those surveyed were not asked if they thought he could win or not.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:32 am
Surely that will change.

But I found it just interesting, a poll about the "favorite son" vs. the "native daughter".
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:52 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:



50% would vote for him, but only 37% think he can win....


You need to read the poll question again. Those surveyed were not asked if they thought he could win or not.


Well, 37% thought he had the "best chance" of winning... but as I write that I see your point. Having the "best chance" doesn't mean that 63% think he CAN'T win.

Walter, I forgot that Hillary has Illinois ties as well. I saw the poll last night and kind of dismissed it because, well, it's Illinois. Of course he'd be polling high there. But yeah, there are reasons Hillary could be doing better than she is, currently.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:58 am
Hor what it is worth: The Des Moines Register has endorsed Clinton in the Dem caucuses and McCain in the Repub. The Boston Globe, which reaches into NH, endorses Obama and McCain.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 11:46 am
Interesting mix of "favorites" in this election cycle.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 12:20 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
Hor what it is worth: The Des Moines Register has endorsed Clinton in the Dem caucuses and McCain in the Repub. The Boston Globe, which reaches into NH, endorses Obama and McCain.


What does it say about ANY voter that decides who to vote for based on what newspaper endorses what candidate?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 12:26 pm
mysteryman wrote:
realjohnboy wrote:
Hor what it is worth: The Des Moines Register has endorsed Clinton in the Dem caucuses and McCain in the Repub. The Boston Globe, which reaches into NH, endorses Obama and McCain.


What does it say about ANY voter that decides who to vote for based on what newspaper endorses what candidate?


Which is why I included "For what it is worth..." Endorsements plus a few bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 12:37 pm
mysteryman wrote:
What does it say about ANY voter that decides who to vote for based on what newspaper endorses what candidate?


about as much as it says about any poster who consistently posts articles from one media source or another <shrug>
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 12:49 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Illinois Democrats favor Obama 2-1

And this is why I plan on voting in the Republican primary. Illinois is an open primary state which means that any voter can vote in the primary election of choice -- no party affiliation necessary.

If the dem polling was close I would vote in the Democrat primary to vote against Hillary but there doesn't appear to be a need for that. So, that opens up the Republican primary for consideration. Difficult pickings over there indeed.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 02:53 pm
JPB wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Illinois Democrats favor Obama 2-1

And this is why I plan on voting in the Republican primary. Illinois is an open primary state which means that any voter can vote in the primary election of choice -- no party affiliation necessary.

If the dem polling was close I would vote in the Democrat primary to vote against Hillary but there doesn't appear to be a need for that. So, that opens up the Republican primary for consideration. Difficult pickings over there indeed.


Ron Paul....I sent him $25 this morning.

I'll vote for Hillary in the general election, unless RP is running.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 12:36 pm
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 17, 2007
Broadly speaking, the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination are offering similar policy proposals ?- the dispute over health care mandates notwithstanding. But there are large differences among the candidates in their beliefs about what it will take to turn a progressive agenda into reality.


At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so "bitter and partisan," and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a "different kind of politics."

At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. ?- a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.

Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.

The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator ?- Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register ?- suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because "the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington."

Mr. Edwards replied, "Some people argue that we're going to sit at a table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen."

This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a "big table" that would include insurance companies and drug companies.

On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards by name. He declared that "We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic."

Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that "us" includes the insurance and drug lobbies?

O.K., more seriously, it's actually Mr. Obama who's being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries ?- which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems ?- will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there's no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies ?- backed by the conservative movement as a whole ?- will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? "I'll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying," he says. I'm sure the lobbyists are terrified.

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

There's a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what's wrong with the country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."

And there's every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week's Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.

But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on the grounds that his "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

And while The Register endorsed Hillary Clinton, the prime beneficiary of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama, with his message of reconciliation. According to a recent survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mr. Obama's coverage has been far more favorable than that of any other candidate.

So what happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee?

He will probably win ?- but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let's be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public.

And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 01:47 pm
Krugman has hit the nail on the pin-head; saying "we're going to unify the country" is not the same as the potential for doing so. Politics is a messy business where differing interests wins over interests for the majority.

History will continue to repeat itself in US politics and politicians. Even the best politicians failed in many of their goals.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 03:14 pm
CI

Talk is cheap experience is golden
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 03:20 pm
Krugman's piece was interesting and insightful. However, it was clearly written from the populist perspective and based on the assumption that no other approach will either be successful or do any net good. Those are arguable assumptions, and it is unfortunate that the author did not at least acknowledge that.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 07:19 pm
Why We Wish the Clintons Would Just Go Away

Because they surround themselves with people like Mark Penn and James Carville (Rove-like figures, just dumber and more duplicitous than Karl), and rather than making the Clintons look pure by contrast, they make them look even sleazier.

Because they lie more often than they tell the truth, and we can't take it anymore (where to begin? Ah, perhaps, one of Bill's freshest: he was always against the war in Iraq).

Because when they don't lie, they avoid telling the truth, prevaricate and try to laugh it off.

Because they have spun us into complete exhaustion (she, the most famous woman in America, complains that Iowa is difficult because she is less well known than a failed vice presidential candidate and a half-of-one-term senator).

Because they live on another planet, one where attacking a candidate's kindergarten record is appropriate and useful preparation for a general election.

Because he's the first black president as long as it doesn't interfere with their plans for world domination (when it does, they can turn into Jesse Helms and Trent Lott on a dime, from the Sista Souljah absurdity to the suggestion that the first black candidate with a shot at winning the presidency is a drug dealer).

Because she's a feminist until it is her own husband who abuses his power by engaging in sexual relationships with women who are his subalterns. Then she becomes a woman who stands by her man.

Because she's a strong, independent woman until she needs to ride the coattails of her husband's popularity. Then she is two for the price of one.
Because long before New York City taxpayers were subsidizing Rudy Giuliani's extramarital affair, Arkansans were paying for Bill's.

Because when she says there will be no surprises about her past in this campaign, we remember all the scandals we glossed over because it was all a right-wing conspiracy, and realize how little we know about the Clintons.

Because they, the reason why heterosexuals should be banned from getting married (or at the very least should be prosecuted for breach of contract), oppose marriage for gay people.

Because they'd rather die than admit a mistake.
Because Republicans would rather run against her than against Dennis Kucinich.

Because the prospect of 16 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would make us seriously consider voting for Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party. Or Ron Paul. Or Michael Bloomberg. Or whoever's on the Socialist Party line.

Because the Clintons are angry that America doesn't just roll over and elect her president the way New York rolled over and elected her senator.
Because we don't have to settle for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/why-we-wish-the-clintons-_b_76930.html
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:18 pm
The recent expressions of antipathy for Hillary among Democrats surprise me. I assume this represents some combination of resentment for her centrist positions and possibly emerging support for Obama and Edwards.

I still find it hard to believe that either of these two will fare well in the election if they are nominated. Democrats have long faced a situation in which the emotional favorites of party activists were generally not favored by the majority of the electorate. In fact his early understanding of this (together with a little help from Ross Perot) is what got Clinton into the White House in the first place. I should be pleased - Hillary will be hard for the Republicans to beat, while the others provide opportunities.

One term in the Senate isn't much experience with which to gain the gravitas that becomes much more important in the election than it seems in the primaries. Hillary and Edwards both benefit from much longer public exposure. Obama is attractive and well-spoken, but too often reveals his inexperience and what often looks like a lack of depth.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:29 pm
snood wrote:
Why We Wish the Clintons Would Just Go Away


Well posted words, snood, in regard to the Clintons. I too heard about Bill claiming he always opposed the war. He is truly pathological, and many of us have known this since 1992, and I am glad that many in the Democratic Party are almost fed up, finally.

I am of the opinion that once the ship does truly begin to sink, it will go fast, very very fast. I hope we are seeing signs of it now. Holes are forming in the hull, and it remains to be seen if she is savvy enough or smart enough, or lucky enough to be able to patch them. My hopes of the demise of the ship may be premature, we will just have to watch this closely. If the press fully turns against her, the sinking will happen fast. And she will be one angry woman. But she has been for years, anyway.

She wants the Whitehouse bad, and if she should lose the Democratic nomination, Rush warned us about an independent run, no guarantee but a possibility. These people are relentless and this is what their entire lives are centered around, which is power.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:42 pm
Bush's ship is sinking
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Aug 29, 2005

The good ship "Bush" is sinking, folks; perhaps not as fast as the Titanic, but it is headed to the same watery grave, with Bush, Karl Rove and Orrin Hatch enjoying nutcakes with silver spoons in the pilot house as the angry sea closes in. This freighter has holes the size of oil drums and no rudder. It should never have been allowed to leave port.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 18 Dec, 2007 06:51 am
Wow! Love the Huffington piece on the Clintons! Well said!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 18 Dec, 2007 07:17 am
David Brooks seems to be getting less evil... I blame Mark Shields.

While I medium-agree with what he says about Hillary, I very much agree with what he says about Obama. You'll recognize a lot of it, but I think he says it well.

A chunk from the middle, not the whole thing:

Quote:
Many of the best presidents in U.S. history had their character forged before they entered politics and carried to it a degree of self-possession and tranquility that was impervious to the Sturm und Drang of White House life.

Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones. He was forged by the process of discovering his own identity from the scattered facts of his childhood, a process that is described in finely observed detail in "Dreams From My Father." Once he completed that process, he has been astonishingly constant.

Like most of the rival campaigns, I've been poring over press clippings from Obama's past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none. The unity speech he gives on the stump today is essentially the same speech that he gave at the Democratic convention in 2004, and it's the same sort of speech he gave to Illinois legislators and Harvard Law students in the decades before that. He has a core, and was able to maintain his equipoise, for example, even as his campaign stagnated through the summer and fall.

Moreover, he has a worldview that precedes political positions. Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country's future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn't deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn't been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what's needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.

But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

Obama did not respond to his fatherlessness or his racial predicament with anger and rage, but as questions for investigation, conversation and synthesis. He approaches politics the same way. In her outstanding New Yorker profile, Larissa MacFarquhar notes that Obama does not perceive politics as a series of battles but as a series of systemic problems to be addressed. He pursues liberal ends in gradualist, temperamentally conservative ways.

Obama also has powers of observation that may mitigate his own inexperience and the isolating pressures of the White House. In his famous essay, "Political Judgment," Isaiah Berlin writes that wise leaders don't think abstractly. They use powers of close observation to integrate the vast shifting amalgam of data that constitute their own particular situation ?- their own and no other.


Whole thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 291
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/09/2026 at 04:45:38