0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 10:57 am
snood wrote:
blatham wrote:
ps

If paying attention, you folks will have noticed a growing sentiment (voiced by media people) in the direction of an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama ticket. Don't discount it. Consider, aside from all else, the positives that can accrue from such a formidable pooling of talents.


I've noticed. But I think this sentiment resides mostly in the realm of the media muckrackers, and reflects little if at all on the real potential for either Obama or Clinton to play second fiddle to the other.


I agree with this, but it would make more sense for Obama to swallow his pride and become VP then not. It would unify the ticket, and give Obama the experience he needs to overcome objections to his candidacy later on.

I agree with pretty much every one else, including the talking heads, that a Clinton-Obama ticket is pretty much like saying 16 years of Dem presidency.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 11:47 am
Jane Hamsher's take on the recent mmm kerfuffle is interesting.

Quote:
We're at the mercy of a narcissistic and irresponsible press. Matt Bai's blog post in the New York Times being "Exhibit A":

Quote:
No one expects Mrs. Clinton to stand down and let Mr. Obama make his case unchallenged. She could, however, send a clear message to the cogs in the machinery she's built that there is a line she will not cross. She could tell her Nevada allies that the job of the Democratic Party she grew up in is to make it easier for people to caucus, not harder. She could tell Robert Johnson that he needs to apologize, the same way she forced Bill Shaheen, her New Hampshire co-chairman, to resign last month. She can make it plain to all those people trying to get jobs in the next Clinton Administration that there is way to win--a rough and combative way, even--that nonetheless won't destroy all the good that the Clintons, at least for a lot of Democrats, have come to represent.


By loading all the responsibility onto one candidate, as if the other had no place in it, it just heightens the antagonistic environment and makes the problem worse. Did Bai call for Obama's national co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. to be fired after he said Hillary Clinton cried over her appearance and didn't care about the victims of Hurricaine Katrina? Did he even mention that this isn't a one-way battle? No. He's smugly content to pour gasoline over an already volatile situation then stand back and watch it burn.

Myopic journalists like Bai inflame these things to the detriment of the political environment and the Democratic party without any consideration of the cost involved. I realize destroying any kind of coalition that could win against the Republicans next November is an acceptable price for some people, but some of us actually do care what happens to the country going forward.


hamsher at huff-po
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 12:09 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
"I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."
-- Matthews to an MSNBC colleague, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine in 2001

Chris Matthews
noted at mediamatters.org

And it shows, in each night's iteration of Hardball.


David Fiderer: Chris Matthews Doesn't Rewrite History About the Clintons, He Just Makes It Up
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 01:42 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
blatham wrote:
pssst....

The rationale of 'truce' applies here as well.

(solidarity lesson number one)



Blatham, you've spent the last year acting as traffic cop, devil's advocate and nanny anytime someone expresses opinions about Hillary's character and tactics. You usually frame your argument around the perceived brainwashing job done on us by the media.

In the above post I made there is some clear evidence of exactly what people are talking about regarding Hillary's campaign tactics and it comes directly from Hillary's campaign and not filtered through any media spin.

Have you looked at the Hillary campaign website lately to see all the attacks on Obama's record there? She doesn't allow comments or feedback on her website the way Obama does so the only method of response/rebuttal is by not being mute and fighting back. Is this what Democratic unity looks like to you?


Actually, I've defended both candidates when this sort of stuff has come up (and it isn't one-sided) and I have refused to attack or forward an attack on either one of them.

I have come to Hillary's defense more than Obama (or Edwards) because negative commentary directed towards Hillary has been far far more common both here and in the media. I also consider that little of the critical commentary on Hillary is accurate or fair or relevant.

Believe it or not, as you choose, but I have now no preference on which one of the two might gain the nomination because I have concluded that I simply don't have the means to determine which will be more likely to either win the election or be the most effective president (and I'm a pretty serious liberal philosophically).

What the democratic constituency is trying to do right now at this point in time is remarkably unique, progressive and brave...and morally correct ini my opinion. At an absolutely critical point in American history when the stakes are perhaps as high as in any earlier election, you are about to present to yourselves and to the rest of the American public either a woman or an african american as options to become President.

Sexism and racism run deep in your culture (and mine) still. It is simply and unfortunately delusional to think this experiment at THIS point in time will leave you unscathed.

You not only have a huge and effective propaganda machine backed by more financial resources and more real expertise than the world has ever before brought to bear upon a community's perceptions and emotions. And into this line of fire you've put two representatives with cultural targets on their foreheads. And they are in contest with each other even before the real fight begins. So what the hell do you expect?

I'll just tell you straight out that if you guys here continue to play this game of trying to hurt each other, whatever justification you might deem sufficient to that end, then you are being self-destructive and bloody stupid.

Adopt Barack's wisdom and shut the phuck up.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 02:11 pm
I don't think Barack's wisdom is best summarized as "shut the phuck up."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 07:56 pm
sozobe wrote:
I don't think Barack's wisdom is best summarized as "shut the phuck up."


Comissar Blatham exhorts us to maintain party unity in the face of the enemy!

Too much internal disputations will only weaken our resolve, and play in the hands of our ever watchful foes. Do not give any ammunition to those hostile to our Party by criticizing our leaders too much! Remember, they are always listening, so be responsible in what you decide to say!

Always remember that any disagreements we might have within the mantle of our Party are subservient to our common purpose, and the overriding need to defeat the brutal agents or reaction! Always keep that thought close to your heart, before you are tempted to berate our Party's leaders too harshly, too sharply, or too unguardedly!

Do you want our ruthless adversaries to win this battle? If not, then take your responsibility! Refrain from the cacaphonous discord that our great people's democracy might tempt you into! Unity, comrades! Forward!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:13 pm
Democratic debate

Hillary's opening: as sanctimonious as you can get.

Now the question comes back to Obama: How did he get to be on the defense on this?

Meanwhile: brownie points to Edwards for his touch of more infectious communication. While Hillary and Obama talk in abstract concepts, Edwards tells a story (of the four men who stood up etc).

Doesnt add anything of substance, but catches your attention and sympathy more, and leaves the other two sounding a bit stifled. (But who could blame them at this particular point with this question?)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:18 pm
Tricky tricky, how every time Hillary is called on the **** thats gone on the last few days, she immediately spreads the blame by trying to imply equivalence. Well, we all will now...; as Obama and I agree, we should now...; etc, bla bla.

She doesnt own even the most blatantly ridiculous ducking by that BET boss.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:27 pm
I liked how Edwards refused to bite on the bait of "are you sorry about ganging up on Hillary last time". Turn it around to make it about how he speaks the truth and always will. It's all rhetorical tricks of course, but smart as they come. But a gamble though.

Ooh Obama looks perpetually pissed.. or just tense... in this debate. Understandably, but visible!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:31 pm
Overall the mood seems to border between earnest and funereal..

I cant believe Hillary just refused to say that, while she is the most prepared to be President, the other two would be prepared too. Talk about that, Blatham, if you want to talk about how the Democrats should not give ammunition to the Republicans, and should always emphasise how all of the frontrunners would be good choices..

Obama was good on the "name your strength and weakness" question.. Edwards was a bit slick on the weakness.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:32 pm
But Hillary outslicks him. Well, outducks him, it's not exactly slick, it's more agressive. Implying that Obama is like Bush again.

Is anyone else watching?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:37 pm
Obama responds with a very veiled reference to Hillary's failure to read the relevant documents and make the right choice before the Iraq war... too veiled for any non-geek to pick up tho.

It's all a game, these debates I mean, huh.. Not politics, but the debates, specifically.

I mean, I'm a pretty serious guy, but even I am mostly noticing stuff like how Obama stutters a bit. And hell, Edwards seems to me like the best, most personal communicator, in these debates I mean, and it doesnt do him any good..
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:38 pm
Obama just said he would end climate change!!!!!!!!!!!!! Laughing Laughing

Wowsee, some power he must think he has!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:42 pm
Question, are these planted questions again? Hillary has the look of great, I was waiting for that question.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:47 pm
On the whole mortgage/transparency/Kuwait/energy clusterf*ck going on now, Hillary was pretty effective, informed and to the point. (Obama is as well, now).

Edwards turned the whole question back to his signature stump speech theme, but that made him look a bit like an one-issue candidate - and raised the suspicion that he was just out of his depth.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:50 pm
I was going to post something about a lot of these sounding like job interview questions, then I realized the debates are sorta job interviews, but really "strengths and weaknesses". That's from What Color is Your Parachute, circa 1979.


okie, the questions don't have to be 'planted'. If someone lobs a question that someone has prepared for (doesn't every good interviewee prep?), you bet they're gonna be pleased.

The smile might be more appropriate in an actual job interview, but I'd smile too.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:52 pm
But he does consistently talk about the every day concerns people deal with on a day to day basis, and in words everyone can immediately understand. The other two seem better informed, but kind of... above it all. Listing policies, but not communicating it in every day personal stories.

No wonder Edwards outdoes the others among the voters who cite "cares most about people like me" as the main qualification in a candidate.

(Though Hillary channels everyone's neighbour's rage at some failed business executive getting a 100 million dollars bonus pretty well right now)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:52 pm
nimh wrote:
On the whole mortgage/transparency/Kuwait/energy clusterf*ck going on now, Hillary was pretty effective, informed and to the point. (Obama is as well, now).

Edwards turned the whole question back to his signature stump speech theme, but that made him look a bit like an one-issue candidate - and raised the suspicion that he was just out of his depth.

Thats the question I was talking about, I think Hillary knew it was coming. This debate needs to be investigated, nimh. Nothing would surprise me about this, as it has happened before. Perhaps she has a complete list of questions ahead of time, who knows?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 08:55 pm
Why are Blatham & Nimh so eager to suppress debate and discord among supporters for the various Democrat candidates? Do they represent some new form of international thought police?

Are the leading Democrat candidates hothouse flowers that cannot endure the normal rowdy contest of democratic politics?? I don't think so. Does their "minority status" (female/black) mean that criticism (mutual or from third parties) is necessarily motivated by sexism or racism? That makes no sense.

Is "diversity" itself a suitable criterion for the selection of our president? I don't think so. Personal qualities are far more important. Indeed we need less not more of the archaic practice of judging individual people by their sex, "race" (whatever that really means) or any such group label.

The recent descent of the media and some Democrat political functionaries and second rank "leaders" into mutual accusations of "racism" or "sexism" and/or insufficient respect for the icons of black & women's political emancipation suggests a rather dangerous tendency to distort otherwise normal and innocent political disputation with an odd, almost medieval, dogmatism - on both sides. Clearly the motivations of both candidates were merely to achieve some relative advantage in advancing their respective cases for election. There is nothing wrong with that, and if we are compelled to suddenly suspend all dispute in the name of some new sacred principle of protected diversity, then our republic will be badly served indeed.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 15 Jan, 2008 09:01 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Why are Blatham & Nimh so eager to suppress debate and discord among supporters for the various Democrat candidates? Do they represent some new form of international thought police?

Dude - sorry for addressing you as dude, but I mean, really - did you really not catch that extra rich, double-flavour, whoop-de-doop with cream and double sugar helping of sarcasm & parody in my "Commissar Blatham" post? Come on! Very Happy
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 03:31:27