0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 09:10 pm
A month ago, I wrote in this thread:

nimh wrote:
Yesterday the influential SEIU (Service Employees International Union - 1.9 million members) held its presidential forum in D.C.

"Speculation hangs in the air here; the union says it will be making a primary endorsement in October, and of course, Edwards is a favorite among many labor activists," commented Dana Goldstein on TAPPED, but, she added, the question was, "after feeling burnt by their early Dean endorsement last time around, will the SEIU take a risk for '08?"

Obama took the stage, as did Richardson, Hillary, Edwards and Chris Dodd. And apparently, it was quite the event. Enthusing reading!

Things proceeded weirdly. A straw poll was held, but the results were initially not published. Word was that the union's national leaders could not agree on whom to endorse.

It was clear that many state organisations wanted to endorse Edwards, but that the Illinois and New York organisations mounted strong resistance in favour of Obama and Hillary, respectively. They also countered the pro-Edwards organisations with the argument that the SEIU should back a winner this time, someone who actually had a chance at winning the nomination.

A decision was postponed. The candidates got a new chance to present their cases to the union leaders. But even after that, no consensus could be reached.

Eventually, the SEIU announced that it would not endorse a candidate nationally for the primary race - but, crucially, that the SEIU organisations in individual states were free to endorse a candidate themselves.

This was initially described as a blow to Edwards. But as amply noted below, things might not turn out so badly for him at all, after all.

The crucial Iowa SEIU chapter was the first to endorse Edwards. But others followed quickly, and by now state councils in California, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia, have endorsed Edwards - enough to represent nearly 1 million members or over half of the union's national membership.

In contrast, Obama apparently has only won endorsements from the Illinois and Indiana chapters so far, which have about 170,000 members together.

Quote:
EDWARDS GETS NEEDED IA NOD

October 13, 2007
MSNBC

[On] Monday [..], John Edwards will get SEIU-Iowa nod and the endorsement of other state affiliates, according to multiple sources. [..] No campaign needed this organizational boost more than Edwards since he financially can't keep up with Clinton and Obama in Iowa.


Quote:
Iowa SEIU to Give Edwards the Nod

14 October 2007
theGarance

This is the best news the John Edwards campaign has had in some time. The endorsement will have several positive results: 1) strengthening Edwards on the ground organizationally; 2) providing a conduit for the SEIU locals in Nevada and California that are likely to endorse him to funnel their enthusiasm into Iowa; and 3) creating a momentum signal to the press not to count Edwards out.

There's also the scissors-paper-rock element of the endorsement, in that it effectively blocks the powerful Chicago SEIU locals from streaming into the state on Barack Obama's behalf (under union rules, the locals get to call the shots about who operates on whose behalf in which states, so the local endorsements in the early primary states matter most). The Illinois locals will still be able to be a major help to the Obama campaign, by doing phone-banking or other work that allows his Iowa forces to concentrate on other matters, but overall the net boon to the Edwards campaign will be about as big as could be hoped for in the absence of a national endorsement.


Quote:
Key SEIU councils back Edwards

October 15, 2007
Chicago Tribune

Unable to secure an endorsement on the national level, Democratic presidential contender John Edwards was still able to gain the backing Monday of 10 state councils of the politically powerful Service Employees International Union, including those of Iowa, California, Michigan and Ohio. [..]

While there are only about 2,000 SEIU members in Iowa, largely concentrated at medical centers in the eastern part of the state [..] state councils that have endorsed the same contender can work together, meaning Edwards could benefit in Iowa from on-the-ground political manpower from the SEIU's 70,000 members in Michigan, 28,000 workers in Minnesota and 22,000 in Ohio as well as receive long-distance help from union members in West Coast states, including California's 656,000 members. [..]

"He's made the fight for working families his own fight," said Cathy Classon, the head of SEIU Local 199 in Iowa, contending other Democratic candidates "tended to be more cautious or politically calculated in their positions."


Quote:
S.E.I.U. Labor Groups in 10 States Endorse Edwards

New York Times
October 15, 2007

Not only did John Edwards receive the endorsement today of the Iowa state chapter of the service employees union, but he also has garnered the backing of nine other state chapters of the S.E.I.U, including the biggest prize of all, the S.E.I.U. council in California, which represents 650,000 workers. [..]

The S.E.I.U. is considered extremely politically active, and these 10 state councils that endorsed Mr. Edwards represent 1 million workers, or more than half its national membership. [..]

"California S.E.I.U. members know that John Edwards will be the best labor president in the history of the United States," said Sal Rosselli, president of the biggest S.E.I.U. local in California. "His proposals are far and away the best among the candidates on the issues that matter most to working Americans." [..]

Although Mr. Edwards trails far behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in national polls, he is neck and neck with them in Iowa. Indeed, the Edwards campaign has made no secret that it is putting a lot of resources in the early states in an effort to achieve an upset victory to help give it momentum in other states.

Far more than any other candidate, Mr. Edwards has staked his campaign on labor endorsements. He has marched on scores of union picket lines and moved quickly to endorse one of labor's main goals: universal health coverage.


Quote:
Largest Union in California Says It Will Work for Edwards There and Elsewhere

The New York Times
19 October

The state council of the Service Employees International Union publicly threw its weight behind John Edwards's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination on Friday and said it would rally its members here and in other states, including those holding early primaries, to support his campaign.

The union is the largest in California, with 656,000 members. Its backing is a significant achievement for Mr. Edwards, especially if the union is able to extend its organizational ability to the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. [..]

"Twenty-four percent of the voting population in elections come from union households," said Chris Chafe, a senior adviser to the campaign. "In the caucuses and primary states, the labor movement will be one of the only entities that is organized enough to deliver significant turnout and real votes."

Last month, the union's national board, which represents nearly 1.9 million workers, voted to leave it up to state councils to decide whom to back. On Monday, union leaders said state councils in California, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana Ohio, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia, which represent half of the union's membership, had endorsed Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Edwards's other endorsements include the Transport Workers Union of America, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers of America, his campaign said.

But there is still plenty of terrain to cover, with other unions divided over whom to endorse. The A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s executive council, for instance, voted in August against endorsing any presidential candidate, setting the stage for its 55 member unions to make individual endorsements. [..]

The service employees' union represents low-wage workers like home health aides, security guards and janitors. Sal Rosselli, president of the California state S.E.I.U., said a priority was better access to health care. The local will now mobilize its field operations to produce DVD's, conduct calling campaigns, produce mailings and hold work site meetings, he said.

"That's our job now," Mr. Rosselli said in an interview. "To go to our 656,000 members in California and their families and help them understand our experience with John Edwards and what he stands for."

They would also reach out to other states, including Nevada, which has a Democratic caucus scheduled for Jan. 19, Mr. Rosselli said. He also said he met this week with S.E.I.U. leaders in Iowa. "We have significant resources that we can now share with Iowa and other states that are supporting John Edwards," he said.

Mr. Edwards helped tip support in his favor with the California local by being first to announce a comprehensive health care plan, Mr. Rosselli said.

Monique Ozier, 37, a nurse and S.E.I.U. member in Los Angeles, said that Mr. Edwards had walked picket lines several times with security guards there and that his wife, Elizabeth, had written a letter to lift the spirits of nurses picketing in Pomona Valley.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2007 07:57 am
Sharing thoughts from elsewhere about the Democratic debate last night:

From THE FIX at the WaPo:

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came under withering attack from her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination tonight in Philadelphia on topics ranging from Iran to electability to immigration, emerging largely unscathed despite the near-relentless focus on her during the two-hour long debate. ...

Obama ... repeatedly sought to paint Clinton as unable or unwilling to be frank with voters about her positions on Social Security and Iran. "That may be politically savvy but it doesn't offer the clear contrast we need," Obama said.

It was former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), however, who offered up the most biting and direct criticism of Clinton during the debate's first hour.

---

If Obama and Edwards want to turn this debate into a fight between themselves and Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner seems to want to make the fight one between herself and the current president.

In every answer in the debate so far, Clinton has referenced Bush ... Clinton's strategy in this debate appears to be to avoid any direct confrontation with her rivals (despite them doing their damndest to engage her) and instead keep her eye on the lead bogeyman for Democratic voters -- President Bush.

---

Not a moment has passed in this debate where Clinton has not been at the center of the conversation. ...

From Edwards: "If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton is your candidate." He argued that Clinton has taken the most money from the health care industry, the defense industry and from Washington lobbyists. Edwards even threw in the kicker that perhaps the reason Clinton was the subject of so much talk among Republicans was because they may actually want to run against her.

Clinton AGAIN refused to engage, choosing to instead touch on a touchstone issue for the Democratic base. "I think we were making progress in the 1990s until the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush," she said.

---

From THE STUMP at TNR:From TAPPED at The American Prospect:

Obama implies that Democrats who supported the Iraq war in 2003 are "co-authors" of the disaster there. But he doesn't say who those folks are. Or if any of them are on stage with him.

So far, it's looking like the "Obama on the attack" meme was all hype. Edwards, on the other hand, is doing what he's done in all these events, talking about the "clear choice" between the candidates.

---

CAN HILLARY BRING CHANGE? Edwards says, "I believe in Santa Claus, i believe in the Tooth Fairy, but i don't believe that's going to happen." Hillary Clinton represents the "status quo," he continues, detailing the corporate sectors that have contributed to her campaign.

---

OK, this is now everybody -- and I do mean everybody -- against Clinton. It makes her look brave for just standing there, this small determined woman being attacked by three men on either side of her, two male moderators, and the entire male Republican field. Each of the critics on his own would be more effective, but taken as whole, the optics of this are uncomfortable.

Obama, to his credit, is trying to make the pivot to talking about the G.O.P., too, but he's even less inspiring on the offensive than when he tries on the stump to talk about something other than himself. Edwards is just more polished on the attack -- the difference between a law professor and a trial lawyer.

---

HILLARY IS KICKIN' BUTT. She's tougher than Rudy, more experienced than Obama, done more for poor folks than Edwards, and smarter than everybody. That's the subtext of her responses on Social Security and her vote for the Iran resolution.

---

It's a very quiet audience tonight at Drexel University, but Joe Biden cracks them up: "Rudy Giuliani, he only uses three words in a sentence: A noun, a verb, and 9/11."

---

Obama claims Clinton won't admit that on Social Security, there's "an actuarial gap that has to be dealt with." .. She tries to rise above this, responding that there's isn't a great difference between her and Obama on Social Security, except that she articulates, again and again, that "fiscal responsibility" can't happen "on the backs" of the elderly or middle class. That seems like a good line to me.

---

Mark my words: Chris Dodd's attack on Clinton for supporting "the privilege of a driver's liscence" for illegal immigrants, even though she said that's not, in fact, what she supports, is going to have legs. The issues of "privileges" for those who don't deserve them is a repeated Republican line of attack against Democrats who support rights for disenfranchised populations, and I was surprised to hear it coming from Dodd, of all people, as he's generally been to the left of the other senators.

---

From KEVIN DRUM's blog at the Washington Monthly:

[T]he constant attacks did seem to keep Hillary back on her heels a bit. She was definitely even more ambiguous and turgid than usual.

---

I left the room was just as Tim Russert started asking a question about Elliot Spitzer. Turned out he was asking Hillary Clinton about Spitzer's plan to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and if blogo-buzz is anything to go by it was the question of the night.

Here's the nickel summary: Hillary gave a rambling response explaining what Spitzer was trying to do but without really taking a position. Dodd disagreed with the Spitzer plan ("I think it's troublesome") and Hillary then stepped in to muddy the waters some more: "I did not say that it should be done," she said, "but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it." That was followed by some crosstalk between Dodd and Clinton, and then by Russert pressing her to give a firm answer ("Do you support his plan?"). Hillary hedged, and never really answered. ...

Kit Seelye of the New York Times provides the play-by-play:

    Both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama called her on what seemed to be a shift in her statement. Mr Edwards said, "Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago." And Mr. Obama uttered a devastating phrase for anyone who remembers the 2004 campaign: he said he couldn't tell if she is "for it or against it." On the license issue, Mr. Obama said that he thinks Governor Spitzer's plan is "the right idea."
There's no question that Hillary's answer was unusually spineless, especially since she had had plenty of time to think about this. Maybe two solid hours of being a punching bag had gotten to her by that point.

Still, is this really a killer moment? If it is, the bar has really gotten pretty low.

THE FIX about the drivers license moment:

"What is the governor supposed to do?" Clinton asked. "We have failed, George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation of trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who is in New York, we want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. WE should have passed immigration reform."

---

From JOSH MARSHALL's TPM:

Here's the thing with Hillary. Not always inspiring answers. But, man, she never flubs an answer. Simply unflappable. Like a machine. And I mean that as a compliment.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2007 08:11 am
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2007 05:08 pm
Quote:
In every answer in the debate so far, Clinton has referenced Bush ... Clinton's strategy in this debate appears to be to avoid any direct confrontation with her rivals (despite them doing their damndest to engage her) and instead keep her eye on the lead bogeyman for Democratic voters -- President Bush.


Have the Dems forgotten something?
Bush is not on the ballot, nor will he be running for any political office.

Making him the bogeyman seems to be a waste of time, since he isnt going to be a candidate.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Oct, 2007 05:19 pm
She was on the ropes last night...I think the nominee will be Edwards...not just because of last night.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 02:28 am
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
In every answer in the debate so far, Clinton has referenced Bush ... Clinton's strategy in this debate appears to be to avoid any direct confrontation with her rivals (despite them doing their damndest to engage her) and instead keep her eye on the lead bogeyman for Democratic voters -- President Bush.


Have the Dems forgotten something?
Bush is not on the ballot, nor will he be running for any political office.

Making him the bogeyman seems to be a waste of time, since he isnt going to be a candidate.


That's stupid. It's obvious that Bush's policies and the results of his policies are attacked because to a large extent the challenge of the next administration will be dismantling the damage Bush did. There are some on the right who still defend his policies. Do you think them ill advised, just because Bush isn't on the next ballot?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 05:53 am
snood wrote:
There are some on the right who still defend his policies. Do you think them ill advised, just because Bush isn't on the next ballot?

Yep - Giuliani, still for now the most likely Republican nominee, is Bush times two. Everything that was bad about Bush's foreign policy, he doubles. Look at his advisors, at his rhetorics, at his platform in as far as it exists. Same with domestic social and economic policy - Giuliani, as someone wrote the other day, is George Bush without all the thinking. The only difference between the two is that Giuliani doesnt have a natural affinity with the religious right stuff - thats the only thing Giuliani's presumed status as some kind of moderate is based on. But thats the least important of the three axes IMO.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 09:22 am
I watched the debate in its entirety which I hadn't done with the earlier ones.

It's interesting to note woiyo's and brand's take on the debate. Woiyo appears not to have watched it though brand may have. Guys?

Yesterday, I drove from Portland to Vancouver and back, about ten hours on the road and tuned into Rush for a couple of hours. He talked about little else other than the debate. My guess is that woiyo has his interpretation of the debate via Rush, or others like Rush. Same commentary.

Of the sources nimh quotes above, probably Marshall's notions match mine most closely. None of the others can match her in wonk, she's clearly the match of her husband in that regard. Because her knowledge is so incredibly broad and deep, there's a level of confidence she has which the others don't have. Edwards is good in this sort of venue but Obama's 'stage gifts' (let's say) seem at this point still to be mainly in speechifying and in personal interaction.

The media folks were clearly attempting to make sparks and russert's very first question clued us into that. But that's what they want because it serves their audience ratings criterion.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 10:43 am
blatham wrote:
I watched the debate in its entirety which I hadn't done with the earlier ones.

It's interesting to note woiyo's and brand's take on the debate. Woiyo appears not to have watched it though brand may have. Guys?

Yesterday, I drove from Portland to Vancouver and back, about ten hours on the road and tuned into Rush for a couple of hours. He talked about little else other than the debate. My guess is that woiyo has his interpretation of the debate via Rush, or others like Rush. Same commentary.

Of the sources nimh quotes above, probably Marshall's notions match mine most closely. None of the others can match her in wonk, she's clearly the match of her husband in that regard. Because her knowledge is so incredibly broad and deep, there's a level of confidence she has which the others don't have. Edwards is good in this sort of venue but Obama's 'stage gifts' (let's say) seem at this point still to be mainly in speechifying and in personal interaction.

The media folks were clearly attempting to make sparks and russert's very first question clued us into that. But that's what they want because it serves their audience ratings criterion.


You guess wrong there Sparky!

I work for a living and have no time for air-heads like Rush.

Unlike you, I look at things objectively and what I saw during the "debate" was Hillary unwilling or unable to answer a simple question definitively Yes or No.

If Tim Russert will ruffle her feathers, what will the Senate and more importantly, what will World leaders do if she is pressed for a position.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 11:45 am
Quote:
You guess wrong there Sparky!


Well, ok then, bippy.
0 Replies
 
rrturner
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 02:50 pm
Hillary better answer her questions more clearly
Hillary has no shot at the general election. I hate to say it but the media destroyed her on that debate. www.polijam.com had a ton of links from different news outlets showing the other dems getting ready to pounce on her. She will get by the primary but will be wounded. And Rudy won that debate anyway by being mentioned so many times. It helps him in the primary for the GOP ticket. Her camp better get their stuff together. She needs to answer questions about her policy without constantly going back and forth.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 03:07 pm
Re: Hillary better answer her questions more clearly
rrturner wrote:
Hillary has no shot at the general election. I hate to say it but the media destroyed her on that debate. www.polijam.com had a ton of links from different news outlets showing the other dems getting ready to pounce on her. She will get by the primary but will be wounded. And Rudy won that debate anyway by being mentioned so many times. It helps him in the primary for the GOP ticket. Her camp better get their stuff together. She needs to answer questions about her policy without constantly going back and forth.


So, would you say that Hillary has consistently won each and every Republican debate? She is by far the most mentioned person there.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 03:55 pm
Re: Hillary better answer her questions more clearly
rrturner wrote:
Hillary has no shot at the general election. I hate to say it but the media destroyed her on that debate. www.polijam.com had a ton of links from different news outlets showing the other dems getting ready to pounce on her. She will get by the primary but will be wounded. And Rudy won that debate anyway by being mentioned so many times. It helps him in the primary for the GOP ticket. Her camp better get their stuff together. She needs to answer questions about her policy without constantly going back and forth.


Of course, another piece at that same link says:
Quote:
Clinton would cream Giuliani, poll finds

By: David Paul Kuhn
Oct 31, 2007 04:40 PM EST
Updated: November 1, 2007 09:27 AM EST

Republican popularity at its lowest level in a generation, huge study by Pew reveals.

One year before voters go to the polls to select the next president, the Republican Party is as weak as it has been in a generation, a detailed new poll suggests.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 05:34 pm
blatham, woiyo is good at plagiarizing is what it is

woiyo wrote:
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

Asked whether she still agrees with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.

But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: "I did not say that it should be done."



http://www.drudge.com/news/100240/simon-clinton-bombs-debate

Quote:
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

Asked whether she still agrees with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.

But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: "I did not say that it should be done."

NBC's Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: "You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"


what a putz
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 06:26 pm
Excerpt:

Immigration: From talking point to sore point
At NBC debate, Clinton struggles to court various groups key to campaign


MSNBC

It was a moment that crystallized Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's struggles in Tuesday night's debate. Questioned about a plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Mrs. Clinton at first seemed to defend it, then suggested she was against it, until finally, pressed for a direct answer, she accused the moderator, Tim Russert, of playing "gotcha."

Her verbal twists and turns provided her opponents with fodder for their central critique of Mrs. Clinton, which coursed throughout Tuesday's debate: that she was trying to have it both ways on the issue, much as she was trying to portray herself as antiwar while voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21571943/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 08:07 pm
ehBeth wrote:
blatham, woiyo is good at plagiarizing is what it is

woiyo wrote:
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

Asked whether she still agrees with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.

But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: "I did not say that it should be done."



http://www.drudge.com/news/100240/simon-clinton-bombs-debate

Quote:
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

Asked whether she still agrees with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.

But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: "I did not say that it should be done."

NBC's Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: "You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"


what a putz


woiyo wrote
Quote:
Unlike you, I look at things objectively and what I saw during the "debate" was Hillary unwilling or unable to answer a simple question definitively Yes or No.


An objective plagiarist. Another feat in intellect and integrity achieved uniquely by woiyo.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 09:52 pm
Brand X wrote:
Excerpt:

Immigration: From talking point to sore point
At NBC debate, Clinton struggles to court various groups key to campaign


MSNBC

It was a moment that crystallized Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's struggles in Tuesday night's debate. Questioned about a plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Mrs. Clinton at first seemed to defend it, then suggested she was against it, until finally, pressed for a direct answer, she accused the moderator, Tim Russert, of playing "gotcha."

Her verbal twists and turns provided her opponents with fodder for their central critique of Mrs. Clinton, which coursed throughout Tuesday's debate: that she was trying to have it both ways on the issue, much as she was trying to portray herself as antiwar while voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21571943/


O'Reilly tonight referred to this as "Hillary's immigration debacle". Limbaugh yesterday described Obama and Edwards as having delivered "blistering attacks" on Hillary at the debate. It will be immense fun to watch all these guys when Hillary becomes their Commander In Chief.

But for the saner folks... Hillary's competitors have to somehow either goad her into blinking/stumbling or they have to create certain negative notions about her to be forwarded or strengthened. That they will attempt these things doesn't, of course, mean she's actually 'guilty' of them...it's a perception game. And her campaign is playing the same game with her competitors.

Did anyone really watch this debate? Hillary didn't actually do what Edwards claimed, that is, express two opposing opinions on one thing. The problem Spitzer in New York (and governments in the other states) are facing re immigration/documentation is not a simple or easy problem. Is it better, from the point of view of security, to have illegals quite invisible and hidden or to have them identified and in a data base? My understanding is that Spitzer and Chertoff together worked the New York scheme out. Is it better to have them driving without having passed proficiency tests in driving thus risking lives of anyone else on the street? No easy solutions here unless one is simple minded by propensity or suffering an unfortunate lack of intellectual gift.

On the other hand, the immigration problem itself and the realities of how a politician's stance might effect electoral results is something every politician in the US has to dance with. All of the candidates of both parties will have polled and strategized how they are going to deal with this, what they ought to say and what they ought never to risk saying. That Hillary (or any of them) dance around questions is absolutely predictable. But of course, so is that behavior predictably evident every day from Perino or from Bush himself any time he fields questions from reporters.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 10:35 pm
One can only hope the Democrats will nominate either the inexperienced amateur, Obama or the shyster tort lawyer, Edwards. Either would ensure the election of a Republican president in 2008. Sadly I fear they will nominate the carefully prepared Hillary - who is covered with so many layers of revised images and 'triangulated" positions that there is little visibility left for what we may actually get if she is elected. Unfortunately she is likely to win.

BTW, Blatham - you appear to follow both Limbaugh and O'Reilly far more closely than I. Why?
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 03:22 am
woiyo wrote:


So true.

She is a consumate politician, ie, she is adept at dodging any uncomfortable question, feigning humor, talking a lot while saying absolutely nothing.

What is laughable is the accusation of unfairness on the part of the moderators by her election team. How dare anyone be so impertinent as to actually pose a salient question to the "crowned" and "coronated" Democratic presidential nominee.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 03:55 am
blatham,
FYI, you said...

Quote:
Limbaugh yesterday described Obama and Edwards as having delivered "blistering attacks" on Hillary at the debate.


No, he didnt.
He was reporting on what several newspapers and commentators said.
He was quoting others.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/29/2022 at 12:44:40