0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 10:14 am
nimh wrote:
theGarance was in Des Moines for the Democrats' Jefferson Jackson Dinner on Saturday and live-blogged the event.

The short of it: Hillary was "stilted", "shrill", "devoid of warmth", and "curiously dispassionate", while Obama "finally gave the speech his supporters have been waiting for him to give all year" and mere mentions of his name were "met with screams, whoops, ululations, whistles, shouts, and cries of wordless enthusiasm".

What I picked up on in her sampling of the mood were these somewhat contradictory impressions of the crowd in subsequent posts:

Quote:
A quick eyeball of the crowds reavels many of the Obama supporters are young ?- very young. Some look like middle- and high school students. Clinton supporters are predominantly middle-aged women, with puffy Midwestern haircuts, or that peculiar shade of dyed blonde hair women get instead of going gray. There's no discernable trend I can pick out by scanning the Edwards supporters.


Quote:
[Hillary's] supporters had the miscellaneous appearance of the genuinely downtrodden or socially forgotten, unlike the hale and hearty college students and lively, well-to-do middle-class families in Obama's sections.


It's clear whom Garance identifies with (in "the heart of Obamaland [..] the welcome was considerably warmer"), but the descriptions make me sympathise with Hillary. Odd how that kind of thing works on such a gut-instinct level.


And whether young folks will get to the polls in the sort of numbers the Obama campaign hopes isn't at all certain.

The accounts I've bumped into all say that Obama's speech was extraordinary.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 10:16 am
So, I gather neither of you has the conjones/confidence in your party/confidence in your fellow citizens to set up such a wager?

Fine. Just so everyone knows.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 10:30 am
blatham, I was talking about you fighting through the fog of the Clinton koolaid, and maybe someday having the courage to wake up to reality of what you are drinking. I guess you remain oblivious to what was being suggested for you? I was expressing hope for you and encouraging you to have the courage to one day be extricated from the awful and burdensome life of waking up every day to somehow explain another Clinton issue, but I guess you remain happily enslaved?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 10:32 am
Yes, I understood. It was why I suggest this wager.

So, you can't muster up the confidence to make the bet then?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 11:37 am
John Edwards draws distinctions with Obama...

Quote:
Edwards: Giving hope/giving Hell

Edwards, speaking to the Iowa Farmers Union this morning, delivered his crystallized response to Obama's "politics of hope," with a line he first used on This Week last Sunday.

At heart, his case is that he agrees with Obama on substance, but that Obama is too soft.

"We all talk a great deal about hope and our responsibility to restore hope," he said. "Hope Is crucial. but you have to fight to restore that hope."

Edwards recalled his famous case on behalf of a young girl who was hurt by a swimming pool drain. Edwards said he'd given her family hope, and then "I gave that company Hell."

"We need to give America hope but we need to give these people who are driving you out of business Hell," he said.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 11:57 am
blatham wrote:
Yes, I understood. It was why I suggest this wager.

So, you can't muster up the confidence to make the bet then?

I can only speak for my own conscience, blatham, and I still remember how shocked I was in 1992 that Clinton actually won. I believed to the end, even with all the polls, that the people would not actually pull the lever for Bill. So I am not a better on any election.

I see the poll numbers as we move toward this election, and I remain hopeful that enough people will finally see the light in regard to the Clintons, but I am not going to bet on it. I think one hope is that a significant portion of the press will finally get tired of being bullied and pushed around by the Clinton machine and begin to turn against the Clinton charade.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 11:59 am
Plonking this here:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e01fdce-ad97-4dab-a07d-bf98dc52f681

I don't really have any specific comments on it (yet anyway) but came across it while researching something and it's the kind of thing that I often want to refer to later but then can't retrace my steps. (Keywords for myself -- Bunker Hillary The New Republic media machine)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:06 pm
Good link, Sozobe. I pick this quote out, which is what I was talking about in my answer to blatham.

"Reporters' jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. "They're frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don't see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game.""

The Clintons are ruthless, and not to be trusted personally, much less the country should. It was a huge mistake a few years ago, and could be worse this time around.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:08 pm
Huh, trip out, I just finished reading that article myself, came here to wonder where to post it. It must be in the air somehow..
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:11 pm
Sozobe, even though as a conservative I don't agree with Obama much, your guy still seems likeable and even somewhat trustworthy on a personal basis, at least that is my impression so far, which is kind of refreshing in politics. A drastic difference from the Clintons.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:12 pm
None of this paints a particularly attractive picture of any of the candidates or even of the media/blog types who report so breathlessly on their various posturings. I'm not suggesting that the situation is profoundly different among Republicans - only that the charactitures that the Democrats so relentlessly put forward of Republican evil neocons and fanatic evengelicals are more than amply matched by the parody of class warfare (Edwards); adolescent 'vision' (Obama) and professional stage management (Hillary) which they so eagerly pursue.

It does have a trivial quality that somehow fails to match and even undercuts the overheated rhetoric with which they castigate their Republican opponents. However, I'm sure the true believers are thoroughly immune to it and unable to detect the comedy.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:22 pm
Somehow I think it should be fairly easy to write a computer program that could produce the above type of minor georgeob1 post at will - just by rearranging certain set keywords and phrases and structuring them in grammatically feasible ways. Smile
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:30 pm
Clever - and amusing. I suppose there is a certain similarity in these posts. Cool However, how many ways are there to deflate the overdone rhetoric and the sound & fury of grossly hypocritical political posturing?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:34 pm
sozobe wrote:
Plonking this here:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e01fdce-ad97-4dab-a07d-bf98dc52f681

I don't really have any specific comments on it (yet anyway) but came across it while researching something and it's the kind of thing that I often want to refer to later but then can't retrace my steps. (Keywords for myself -- Bunker Hillary The New Republic media machine)


I'm curious what Blatham thinks of this.. here's the article again:

    [size=14][b][URL=http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e01fdce-ad97-4dab-a07d-bf98dc52f681&k=30118]Bunker Hillary[/URL][/b][/size] [b]Clinton's strategy for crushing the media.[/b] The New Republic by Michael Crowley Monday, November 12, 2007

As will be nauseatingly clear by now, my response to Hillary (and her machine) is ambivalent: I think she (and it) is ruthless, strident and on a strategical level unprincipled; but I also feel that this might just simply be exactly what's needed at this time, and we're better off saving the kind and uplifting mode for better times.

But Blatham has been more insistent that the notion that Hillary is "ruthless" and the like itself should be reconsidered, and is largely a product of the branding and casting done by the rightwing media and pundits. Yet here you have Michael Crowley from TNR - hardly a rightwinger - painting a fairly detailed portrait of a ruthless, strident and on a strategic level unprincipled Hillary and accompanying media machine of the same cut.

Again, one could quite reasonably defend such a machine as having been borne out by recent history as simply necessary, and as just being what we will need to undo the Bush-era damage, no matter what our sophisticated natures might prefer. But in the light of info like this I think it's pretty hard to maintain that the image of a "tough, calculating" Hillary itself is a mere invention of the rightwing smearing apparatus.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:34 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Clever - and amusing.

Cool
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:36 pm
Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who could be described as 'disturbed.' He's more hawkish with Bush with comparable leadership skills and exactly the same ability at picking incompetent associates.

Romney is a businessman, not evil but not good.

McCain is good but Republicans don't seem to like him.

Grandpa Fred didn't live up to the hype.

Is Obama's vision really 'adolescent?' Are people so jaded nowadays that anyone who isn't a cynic isn't a serious leader?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 12:49 pm
An interesting parade of prejudices, Cyclo.

How is it that you are able to accurately describe Guliani as "disturbed", while others are necessarily wrong in labelling Obama's rhetoric as "adolescent"?

A potentially interesting, but unstated, standard for "good" and "evil". McCain is "good" but Romney is neither. How so?

There is a good deal of space between "not a cynic" and "serious leader".
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 01:11 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
An interesting parade of prejudices, Cyclo.

How is it that you are able to accurately describe Guliani as "disturbed", while others are necessarily wrong in labelling Obama's rhetoric as "adolescent"?


What does 'adolescent' mean? Does it meant that his proposals aren't serious? Does it mean that what he thinks is wrong? Does it mean that he is naive?

I call Giuliani 'disturbed' b/c he has displayed a wide variety of behaviors which are immoral or amoral at best; he has changed his position on many issues in order to pander to the base; his constant humping of 9/11 and belief that his being mayor of New York somehow equates to terrorism or combat experience is whacked out. I honestly don't think the man is in his right mind.

Quote:

A potentially interesting, but unstated, standard for "good" and "evil". McCain is "good" but Romney is neither. How so?


McCain has shown a willingness to take moral stands on issues which he feels important, such as torture and campaign finance reform, even if it troubles the base. I like that, and I like his stance on many issues. He seems to be an upstanding, measured guy with good experience and I would vote for him.

Trouble is, the Republican party punishes those who don't fall into lockstep. Punishes them heavily.

Romney is a used-car salesman. He'll say whatever people want to hear, whenever. He is the ultimate panderer. He will not be elected president; I'd be willing to be the bank. He's neutral in terms of good v. evil, self serving at best.

Quote:
There is a good deal of space between "not a cynic" and "serious leader".


What is it about Obama which says to you 'not a serious leader?' Specifically, please.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 01:32 pm
Quote:
In Iowa, It's Clinton Pragmatism Vs. Obama Fever

Washington Dispatch: As the Democratic frontrunners campaign in Iowa, Clinton supporters tout their candidate's electability, while Obama's fervent devotees are fueled by passion.

Mother Jones
By Jonathan Stein
November 8, 2007

Hillary Clinton's campaign stops are tightly-scripted affairs, more professionally run and grander in their pageantry (and, often, attendance) than those of any other candidate in the Democratic field. They are, in a word, presidential, and seem designed to project that image to voters. Indeed, as Clinton makes a campaign swing through Iowa this week, voters planning to caucus for her on January 3 say they are drawn to one specific aspect of her candidacy: her electability. Clinton is banking on such pragmatism?-as opposed to her competitors who are pushing the passion button.

Outside a biodiesel plant in the small city of Newton, where throngs of Clinton supporters and media gathered for a Clinton speech on Tuesday, an undecided voter named Patrick Van Nice said that he's looking for the candidate who most reflects his views?-in his case, the "greenest" candidate?-but added that he is seriously considering Clinton because "the other thing is electability. If they're not going to win, or don't have a really strong chance of winning, why bother?"

Similarly, Laura Noyce Engel, a homemaker, said that she sometimes has a hard time seeing where Senator Clinton "is on the issues," but that she may support the former First Lady anyway because the single most important question is, "Who's is going to beat whatever Republican who is going to win their nomination?"

"I think it's high time to get a Democrat in the presidency," Engel added.

It was a refrain echoed by many at the two Clinton events I attended this week. For Democrats looking for a sure thing, Clinton is as close as they're going to get. In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 62 percent of Democrats said the candidate who "has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008" is Clinton. Only 15 and 14 percent, respectively, said the same of Barack Obama and John Edwards. Perhaps the Democrats?-with help from the Clinton campaign and the media?-are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more electable Clinton seems, the more electable she becomes.

Electability is part of the official campaign pitch, too. Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who has endorsed Clinton and is campaigning with her in his home state, told me before the event in Newton that Clinton stands apart from the rest of the Democratic field because of her experience in the White House, her personal relationships with dozens of world leaders, and her willingness to, in his words, "challenge Americans." But when pressed to identify how she differs substantively from the rest of the Democratic candidates, Vilsack pointed to minor differences on health care and then said, "The reality is, we gotta get somebody who can get elected. We gotta get somebody who is tough enough to run in a race that is going to be a tough race." He added, "She is tough. She's been through this process and she knows how tough it can be."

If nothing else, Clinton is seasoned in the ways of political campaigning, having been through several of her husband's campaigns, and a couple of her own. On Tuesday, her well-oiled campaign machine was on display in Newton and at a second stop in Amana, where she addressed supporters in a barn decorated with several American flags and a ring of hay bales framing the stage. Always disciplined and relentlessly on message, Clinton delivered speeches that were calm, smooth, and polished without seeming robotic. Everything is committed to memory?-no notes, no digressions, no cheap one-liners. Even her campaign staffers look more professional than their counterparts on rival campaigns, and seem to exude the confidence of future White House staffers.

The pragmatism of the Clinton campaign and of the senator's supporters poses a stark contrast to what drives the campaigns of other presidential hopefuls, notably Barack Obama, whom I followed Wednesday as he stumped through Iowa towns from morning until evening. Obama's events are not as highly choreographed as Clinton's, but they're always high-energy, as he feeds off of the energy of his supporters and they off of his. If their post-event comments are any indication, Obama supporters aren't yearning for electability. They're there for the candidate.

Unlike at Clinton's events, where roughly half the attendees I spoke with were on the fence, every person I spoke with at Obama events were fervent supporters. They were eager to tell me how strong their support was (very strong, many emphasized) and about how long they've supported him. "I've been with him since day one," one told me proudly.

And when faced with questions about why they support the Illinois senator, Obama devotees literally trip over themselves in an effort to describe his appeal.

"I think he's the one that can bring everybody together," said Cindy Green, who attended an event in a gymnasium in the city of Muscatine, where Obama campaigned under basketball hoops and a giant, handmade sign. "I'm tired of Republicans versus Democrats. He's the one I see that can bring everybody together, work with people, to make a better world, not just a better United States."

Sally Meisinger said she supported Obama because, "He's going to bring change to this country."

"Change on the issues?" I asked.

"Change for the better," she said.

"Change to the system?"

"I think overall change," she responded. "Change in how we think about ourselves, change in how we treat each other and the world, and how the world is going to see us, and just change in every way possible." She paused. "I pray and hope that he has enough support to win in Iowa."

Obama's ability to inspire in this way gives him the opportunity to reach people who traditionally don't participate in politics. Repeatedly, over the course of three Obama campaign stops, I met individuals who said they were planning to caucus for the first time. There were black men in their twenties, single mothers, and high-school and college students, all of whom declared they'd found their way into politics for the first time through the Obama campaign. I even met a few die-hard Obama supporters who had previously been staunch Republicans.

Angela McGee, an attendee at the gymnasium event in Muscatine, tried to herd four small children while she explained that she's supporting Obama because she likes "his personality and his thoughts on health care." Asked if she considered any other candidates, she said, "No, I'm just really, really stuck on Obama." Then she volunteered, with visible pride, "This is actually the first time I've ever voted before. I've never been involved in politics before. I'm doing it for Obama."

David Camp insisted that, though he had been a Republican for 55 years, and still considered himself one, he could reconcile his abundant enthusiasm for Obama because "he's the closest thing to what a true Republican is." Standing on a dock overlooking the Mississippi River in the southeastern town of Burlington after Obama's had addressed supporters, I asked Camp to describe a true Republican. He described someone who bore very little resemblance to Obama. It didn't seem to matter. Asked if he would caucus for Obama, he said, "You bet. The last time I was this excited for a candidate, it was Barry Goldwater."

Senator Obama ends his campaign events with a story about a woman he met in the South who would shout a call-and-response everywhere she went in her small town. "Fired up!" she'd shout. "Fired up!" people would shout back. "Ready to go!" she'd shout. "Ready to go!" people would shout back. Obama encountered this woman on a particularly bad morning and found himself, after a few minutes, surprisingly fired up and ready to go. One voice can change a room, he says. And if it can change a room, it can change a city. "And if it can change a city, it can change a state. And if it can change a state, it can change the nation. And if it can change the nation, it can change the world."

The crowd loves it. Applause begins. "Are you fired up?" Obama yells to his audience, as the applause crescendos. "Are you ready to go?" The cheers are deafening. "Fired up!" he shouts. "Fired up!" the crowd screams back. "Ready to go!" he shouts. "Ready to go!" the crowd roars back.

Afterwards, I caught a young black man?-a rarity in Iowa?-on his way out of the building. "I'm fired up, baby. I'm ready to go," said Tracy McCampbell, with a huge smile. "I'm caucusing, man. First time! I was one of those people who was sucked into thinking, 'One vote doesn't make a difference, blah blah blah.' But I've changed my mind now, man. I'm ready to go."
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 13 Nov, 2007 01:35 pm
Cyclo,

Well as the esteemed Ralph Waldo Emerson famously wrote (in an essay entitled, Self Reliance) "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". As I recall it, he was making a serious distinction between wise and foolish consistency, and issues involving hotly debated questions of contemporary politics were at the top of his foolish list.

I don't know what standard of morality you are applying to Guliani, but I wonder if you are applying it consistently to a field including the Clintons and the wealthy tort lawyer Edwards, and others.

I don't think Romney's experience in managing the stunning success of Bain & Co. (you should check this) and in managing (indeed rescuing) the late olympics, or of completing a very successful term as governor of Massachusetts merits your calling him a "used car salesman".

If you applied the same standard to Obama and his record as an Illinois Legislator and first term senator what conclusion would you make?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 01:49:12