Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Never watched the National Geographic special to which you referred.

Since Bush isn't running for office this administration will be history no matter who wins.

I don't think the world will be much better (or worse) either way.

Surely you don't think we have done as much harm to the peace of the world as have (say) the Russian, Soviet, French, English, Dutch, Spanish, or German empires?

But the smug Democratic hierarchy may be inviting defeat, again, by ignoring the fact that many Americans want leadership that appeals to them on the higher plane of principle. Instead, Democrats often treat Americans more like consumers than citizens, selling them new social programs rather than articulating an uplifting national cause.

"We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?"


Perhaps a different question might be: why would a presidential candidate see the founding principles of the United States as somehow at odds with the desire of parents to want health care for their children

Here is an interesting article for those on here who lean towards the dems.

http://www.alternet.org/story/70201/?page=1

Why the Democrats Could Lose in 2008

Quote:

But the smug Democratic hierarchy may be inviting defeat, again, by ignoring the fact that many Americans want leadership that appeals to them on the higher plane of principle. Instead, Democrats often treat Americans more like consumers than citizens, selling them new social programs rather than articulating an uplifting national cause.

Since neither of you guys can vote here why are you so concerned?[..]

I don't think the world will be much better (or worse) either way.

Surely you don't think we have done as much harm to the peace of the world as have (say) the Russian, Soviet, French, English, Dutch, Spanish, or German empires?

nimh wrote:

I'm not surprised at all. Obama appears to be every conservative's favourite Democrat nowadays. :wink:

And isn't that interesting? Why would that be so?

Since neither of you guys can vote here why are you so concerned?

But in order for this to happen, we've got to be courageous enough to not just talk about it in front of the Sierra Club or organizations that are already sympathetic to us. When I announced my proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, I went to Detroit in front of the automakers and said they had to change their ways. I have to say the room was quiet and nobody clapped, but that's okay. Part of what the next president has to do is not just tell the American people what they want to hear, has to tell them what they need to hear.

georgeob1 wrote:

Surely you don't think we have done as much harm to the peace of the world as have (say) the Russian, Soviet, French, English, Dutch, Spanish, or German empires?

Well thats just dandy then. If it wont be as bad as the Soviets were, why break into any sweat?

Quite the standard you have there...

georgeob1 wrote:

Since neither of you guys can vote here why are you so concerned?

This was a petty and backbiting comment I made at the end of a long day of rather hard fought meetings (I'm back on the East Coast at work). I retract it and apologize for the affront.

Waitaminute...

Unthreatening in what way? Not scary black man... yes. Unthreatening in general... at least debatable, I'd say.

He has a history of being able to connect with unlikely people, and I don't think "unthreatening" is the best way to encapsulate that. "Sincere," maybe

How Some of Us Got the Debate Wrong

[..] Talking to other journalists after the debate, I got the impression that they weren't so excited about Edwards's performance. (That was true of me and Mike, too.) So a lot of us were surprised to hear the cable networks' focus groups proclaim him the winner. But this may be one of those instances of political journalists being a horrible proxy for ordinary voters.

It's not that we in the media thought Edwards was lousy--to the contrary, most thought he was as crisp as ever. It's just that all the material was pretty familiar. If, on the other hand, you were tuning in for the first time today, you could easily have been impressed with his coherence and forcefulness. The man is just a damn good trial lawyer. And the kinds of people he used to persuade in courtrooms are precisely the kinds of people who'll decide the outcome of the caucuses. [..]

--Noam Scheiber

The one thing I will say is that when I first heard the new version of the Clinton pitch Mike mentioned--"Some people believe you get [change] by demanding it. Some people believe you get it by hoping for it. I believe you get it by working hard for change"--I thought it was a winning distillation of the Clinton message.

But, having just come back from an Edwards event in Indianola, I'm beginning to rethink that a bit. Edwards basically turned the line around on her--arguing that the only way to get change is to demand it. "I believe we have to demand change in this country," he said. "And I think we have to fight for that change. I don't think it's going to come on its own. ... I'm talking about the president of the United States fighting against the powerful interests that stand between you and all of the things that America needs."

It sounded like a pretty effective comeback. And, though I didn't make it to Obama's events today in Eastern Iowa, it wouldn't shock me if he turned Hillary's line around in a similar way. [..] I can almost hear him using Hillary as a foil [..] -- e.g., Senator Clinton doesn't want you to hope. She doesn't want you to dream. Well, I'm hear to tell you that you should hope, you should dream. Etc.

WINNERS

Joe Biden: Biden was extraordinary today. Not only did he speak specifically and with authority on issues both foreign and domestic, he was able to tie all of his arguments together under the umbrella of taking action and setting priorities. [..] Biden also beat back the toughest question [when] Ashburn asked him whether his past verbal gaffes in relation to race reflected a level of discomfort [..]. "I got involved in politics because of the civil rights movement," Biden said with real emotion [..]. [A]ll of his rivals offered a "huzzah" for his answer.

Barack Obama: Obama will never be the best debater of the bunch but today he showed how much he has improved. He used almost every answer to make his case that real change in politics is only possible if he is the nominee, and to broaden the argument from one about specific issues to one about the tenor and tone of political discourse. "We need leadership from the White House that restores that sense we are all in this together and are not in this on our own," Obama said. [..]

John Edwards [..]: Edwards is, without question, one of the most gifted (if not the most gifted) debater on any stage. And, for the first 45 minutes of the debate his populist "us versus them" message really hit home. [..] As the debate wore on, however, Edwards' riff on the "people versus the powerful" started to grate on us a bit [..]. The Edwards team was quick to point out that the Fox News Channel focus group gave their candidate a smashing victory in the debate. We can see why but felt he faded out a bit as the debate wore on.

Hillary Clinton [..]: At the start of the debate, Clinton seemed content to offer a series of talking points on issues like balancing the budget and fixing Social Security [..]. Starting with her "free statement" about halfway through the debate, however, Clinton kicked it into a higher gear. In 30 seconds or so, she summed up her campaign's message [..] : "Everybody on this stage has an idea about how to get change. Some believe you get change by demanding it, some believe you get it by hoping for it. I believe you get it by working hard for change." [..]

LOSERS

Bill Richardson: Unlike past debates [..], today he was awarded ample time to make his case to Iowa voters. And, while he didn't fail, he also didn't succeed. [..] Richardson always seems to be trying to put too much into his answers; he was the only one of the candidates on stage who repeatedly violated the time restrictions, forcing the moderator to interrupt him. Richardson had his moments [..] but there weren't enough of them [..].

The Republican Field: For those spartan few of us who watched both debates, one thing was crystal clear: the Democratic field was far deeper and more impressive. That's not to say it is and will always be so. But today the Democrats on stage engaged in a civil but edifying debate on issues that each candidate seemed well versed on and ready to talk about. It was a stark contrast to the Republican gathering, which was largely hijacked by former Ambassador Alan Keyes.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN THE FIRST YEAR?

Obama: reverse executive orders that have undermined our civil liberties, work on health care.

Biden: abandon policies on torture, prisoners, create emergency health care funds on path to universal health care, invest in preschool education.

Richardson: energy strategy to reduce foreign oil imports, bring back habeas corpus, stop using torture, restore ourselves as a nation.

Dodd: appeal to unity, give back Constitution, robust diplomacy in the Middle East, a week after the election get people together to talk about energy and health care.

Edwards: end the war, close Guantanamo, begin process on universal health care and global warming.

Clinton: begin to end war in Iraq and bring troops home, rescind executive orders that take away liberties, end Bush's war on science.

But the dogs are Catholic and have a Jesuit trainer -- I am safe.

Georgeob1 has argued here a couple of times that the Democrats face clear, internal ideological divisions in the presidential race just as much as the Republican field does.

But when I read this summary of what the Democratic candidates said in the last debate in answer to the question what they would do in their first year in office, what struck me how completely in sinc they are, policy-wise:

Quote:

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN THE FIRST YEAR?

Obama: reverse executive orders that have undermined our civil liberties, work on health care.

Biden: abandon policies on torture, prisoners, create emergency health care funds on path to universal health care, invest in preschool education.

Richardson: energy strategy to reduce foreign oil imports, bring back habeas corpus, stop using torture, restore ourselves as a nation.

Dodd: appeal to unity, give back Constitution, robust diplomacy in the Middle East, a week after the election get people together to talk about energy and health care.

Edwards: end the war, close Guantanamo, begin process on universal health care and global warming.

Clinton: begin to end war in Iraq and bring troops home, rescind executive orders that take away liberties, end Bush's war on science.