Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

georgeob1 wrote:

Clever - and amusing.

0 Replies

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

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

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

Quote:

In Iowa, It's Clinton Pragmatism Vs. Obama Fever

Washington Dispatch:

0 Replies

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

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know