0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 02:21 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I think you are merely reciting a few prefabricated prejudices - blowing smoke.

No, I think it is just that you are out of touch with the information here. I've read a number of reports detailing the ways in which the Bush administration has consistently sided with business practices that increasingly restrict the right to join or form a union, and in which the NLRB has been de-toothed and turned into a proxy for business interests. But those are things you dont learn about by reading up on Metternich, and it's not exactly the stuff that makes the WaPo frontpage either.

Now I understand your fatigue with the ever-continuing political to and fro - there's a point for all of us when we just cant be bothered anymore. I have it with Iraq stories sometimes. But if you do choose to no longer keep in touch with the kind of current political analysis going beyond the newspaper headlines that would have informed you about things like this, then dont bloviate at me like this, OK?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 02:50 pm
nimh wrote:
But gratifyingly, the labour movement has actually revived somewhat in those same Bush years, becoming more active again and mobilising their members in ways unseen for a decade and a half. A union like the SEIU is growing and has about two million members - not bad for a union of just one labour market sector, considering the long previous decline of unionism.

Just by ways of one random detail example - despite George's assertion that I have my facts wrong here, the SEIU did indeed grow from 625,000 members in 1980, some 900,000 members in 1996, 1.4 million members in 2000, and more than 1.8 million members today. It's now the largest and fastest growing union in the US. (source and source).
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 02:53 pm
You may well have read some reports, but your understanding of the situation here with respect to organized labor is still deficient. The fact is that Federal laws with respect to the establishment of union monopolies in targeted companies haven't changed in decades. The Clinton Administration notoriously refused to enforce pre-existing law regarding disclosure to workers of the political contributions of their unions and in some cases allowing them to deduct these contributions from their dues (which are witheld from their pay by the employer and paid directly to the union). The Bush Administration began, somewhat half-heartedly to enforce these laws. In addition it acted to seriously enforce existing law regarding the mandatory elections required before a union could claim the legal right to a government-enforced monopoly in the representation of the workers (and the forced collection of dues from their pay). Previously there was widespread fraud and manipulation of votes by the candidate unions. Perhaps it is this you are referring to.

I have extensive direct experience with labor unions - on the opposite side of the bargaining table. I have completed three major collective bargaining agreements with the Construction Trades and Metal Trades unions at companies I headed, and spent several years managing large (several thousands) organized labor workforces. I can tell you this is a rather primitive form of leadership and management and that most non-union companies do a good deal better for their employees than do those with unions. (The latter end up killing the companies that employ them and losing their jobs). Given the very low prevailing levels of unemployment here for the last several decades, this is, perhaps, no suprise.

It is true that the Service employees union has grown as a result of its expansion into the retail sales market. However that growth is small compared to the huge losses in total union membership that have occurred over the past several decades.

Labor Unions still command a good deal of money available for financing the Democrat party, but that is increasingly a result of the relative growth of government employees and public school teacher's unions (The former is where John Sweeney, the current head of the CIO came from). As a factor in American commerce and industry, labor unions are a rapidly diminishing and increasingly irrelevant force.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 03:13 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I think you have got your facts wrong here. Industrial unions are collapsing fast by virtue of their failure to organize support among the workers of new and growing industries, and on their generally bad influence on the economic health of those which they do infect. As a result there are very few disputes involving organized labor which the Federal Department of Labor or ther NLRB can influence or ajudicate. These agencies and the Federal government have no legal standing for the resolution of labor disputes involving states, municipal government or its own bureaucratic agencies - and these are the only areas in which union membership is growing. [..]

I think you are merely reciting a few prefabricated prejudices - blowing smoke.

To wrap this subject up for this thread, let me just provide a link to a thread I once started about the subject. I didn't keep the thread up, so it's only got two articles, one of which I just quickly dug up now, plus a blog post that links through to a number of other relevant articles. But together, those at least give a taste of what we're talking about here:

US Govt: Doing what it can to forbid people to join a union
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 03:44 pm
Both cited articles from "The New Republic" were pro-union polemics and propaganda. I was particularly amused by the reference to "employer manipulation" of NLRB sponsored elections (which involve a secret ballot) compared to the much fairer (or so it implied) public signing (and widespread forging) of cards by union paid organizers. I hope you don't actually believe this obvious distortion of the truth.

Labor union organizers, like the union managers themselves regard their workers more or less as do the managers of meat packing companies regard the cattle in their feed lots - each one is a unit of revenue. The politics of local union governance are based on self-serving lies and deceptions practised by non working stewards and officers of the local. In my experience they were generally opposed to any initiatives of the company directed at improving working conditions and raising productivity, preferring confrontation and belligerence in pursuit of lesser benefits for their workers - but benefits that they could claim as their own. Once I understood this, it was relatively easy to outmaneuver them, however it was the workers who suffered.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 04:47 pm
george wrote
Quote:
I was particularly amused with the irony and self-righteous hypocrisy that pervaded the article, though I doubt that the author - in his self righteous pomposity - was at all aware of it.

Let us quickly review the psychological term "projection"...
Quote:
the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself,


Quote:
Frankly I don't spend much time reading contemporary political commentary - of either side in these struggles... I don't believe that wading through the opinions of self-appointed spokesmen of either side will improve either my understanding of the issues or of the motives of the contending parties.
Believe me, george, your first sentence states the clearly evident. Rather less evident is how you might manage to cling to the hope/presumption/delusion that you somehow still understand, with any specificity or accuracy, what is presently going on. I suppose you might be harvesting the ether for certainty. Or, perhaps a study of other times and places allows you a framework on which to posit all the facts about modernity in the US (which would make a lot of sense, of course, as no one better grasps 21st century American politics than an Egyptologist).

The final date for redemption was last tuesday. Your absence went down in the big book.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 05:20 pm
But Bernie, the irony was there - evident for any objective reader to see. While I don't deny that I am occasioanlly prone to such projection - as are you - none was required in this case. All that was required to miss it was an excess of credulity in the propaganda being offered.

I believe that my understanding of the contemporary political conflicts in this country is at least as great as yours, even though I don't read the blogs and editorials that so interest you. My consistent impression when I do frequent them is that they endlessly regrind the same old arguments, polemics and distortions. Virtually nothing is gained from the experience. Certainly you would accept that proposition with respect to Limbach & O'Reilly. It happens also to be true of the opposing cant and propaganda.

Indeed I strongly believe that the perspective of history lends much deeper understanding of contemporary events than steeping ones self in the sound and fury of contemporary debate. You can easily verify this merely by consulting the contemporary analysis of events as recent as a couple of decades ago. The myopia and partisanship of such commentary is all too evident, and it far eclipses any insights to the judgements that are eventually revealed by the passage of time.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 01:03 am
blatham wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
blatham wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
blatham wrote:


Did anyone really watch this debate? Hillary didn't actually do what Edwards claimed, that is, express two opposing opinions on one thing.


Yes she did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEh2XWSheg

I saw the debate. Feel free to paste in a transcript of the relevant part and make your case.

And, if you care to educate yourself further, Spitzer was questioned by Matthews on hardball yesterday. I'm sure you can find that interview.


The relevant part is right in front of you on youtube.

Russert asks her a "yes" or "no" question...if she supports Spritzer's position on giving illegals drivers licenses and she blathers on about how we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform(whatever that means).

She tries to take both sides of the issue to try an appeal to the most voters and comes off looking like an ass when the other candidates call her on it.

She won't give Spritzer her full support and say "yes, we should give illegals licenses to drive", but she won't say "no, this is a bad idea" either. She is talking out of both sides of her mouth. To me, all she is showing is she is indecisive and can't be trusted.

As is pointed out to you above by nimh, you claimed she had contradicted herself and what you describe here isn't contradiction. There is a refusal to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. But now I'll give you a a study assignment. It will constitute 100% of your final grade. Dig up from youtube either a Perino briefing or the last Bush Q and A with reporters and count the number of refusals to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Hand it in by the end of Monday.


Oh aren't we so superior.

How does blaming Bush provide an answer to, "Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?".

Actually, it makes perfect sense. It's that same exact answer she has for everything.

"Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?" - Because it was Bush's fault.

She never said why she said it was a good idea.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 06:11 am
CK,
You know as well as I do that the dems answer toalmost everything is to blame Bush.
Are you pregnant...blame Bush
Did you wreck your car...blame Bush
Did you overextend yourself buying your house and now face foreclosure...blame Bush

It wasnt Bush that blocked amnesty for illegals, it was the American people.
Yet Hillary blames Bush.

And whats funny is he is not running for President, so he is a nonfactor in the election.
Yet the dems are all running against him.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 06:51 am
blatham wrote:
woiyo wrote:
blatham wrote:
woiyo wrote:
snood wrote:
Damn, woiyo. You gonna cop to bein busted, or you gonna try to bluster a way out of it?


Please translate into English.


I think what snood is saying, if we were to express it in the sort of dialect preferred by guys in pickup trucks, is that bethie caught you up in a needless lie and he's wondering whether you will have the personal wherewithall to just admit it so that the rest of us (none of whom haven't fibbed or phucked up themselves) can consider that future conversation with you has some value.


What the "EFF" are you talking about? I think your pants are too tight and effecting the blood flow to your pea brain, you arrogant ****.


Pssst... you ain't lookin' a winner here, putz


Pea Brain, the link to Drudge is noted in prior posts.

You really are dumb. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 08:27 am
georgeob1 wrote:
But Bernie, the irony was there - evident for any objective reader to see. While I don't deny that I am occasioanlly prone to such projection - as are you - none was required in this case. All that was required to miss it was an excess of credulity in the propaganda being offered.

I believe that my understanding of the contemporary political conflicts in this country is at least as great as yours, even though I don't read the blogs and editorials that so interest you. My consistent impression when I do frequent them is that they endlessly regrind the same old arguments, polemics and distortions. Virtually nothing is gained from the experience. Certainly you would accept that proposition with respect to Limbach & O'Reilly. It happens also to be true of the opposing cant and propaganda.

Indeed I strongly believe that the perspective of history lends much deeper understanding of contemporary events than steeping ones self in the sound and fury of contemporary debate. You can easily verify this merely by consulting the contemporary analysis of events as recent as a couple of decades ago. The myopia and partisanship of such commentary is all too evident, and it far eclipses any insights to the judgements that are eventually revealed by the passage of time.


george

You are, and I say this simply to alert you, about two hundred nautical miles past redemption.

As regards 'projection', it isn't a notion I find much helpful because of the circularity problem. But you deserved a quick poke in the eye for your fascile rejection of Thomasky's piece.

Take, for example, your final paragraph above. Then, let's compare it to the very first sentence in Tomasky's second paragraph...
Quote:
We can regret, as it is customary to do, the loss of civility in political discourse (although such laments tend to assume a golden era that wasn't quite as civil in reality as it is in the memories of those who mourn its passing).


You've fallen back, again, on your fundamental means of avoiding close study and discernment... "there's nothing new under the sun" or its variant... "every one/ every thing/ every time period are all the same". Of course, what you are doing is like someone insisting that the Pope and Pol Pot are not distinguishable in any important way. Knowing a fair bit about both men, you would properly assume that someone voicing such a shallow comparison doesn't actually have the necessary knowledge to warrant his certainty.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 09:31 am
CerealKiller wrote:
She never said why she said it was a good idea.

Right. So your argument about what Hillary did wrong has now pivoted 90 degrees from "Yes, she did express two opposing opinions on one thing" to "She never expressed any clear opinion".

That, of course, is exactly what Blatham and I pointed out - and it's all we pointed out - that you tried defending one argument (she did take two opposing opinions) by making one that is in direct contradiction to it (she never expressed any clear opinion). The only odd thing is that you never even seem to realise it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 11:00 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Both cited articles from "The New Republic" were pro-union polemics and propaganda. I was particularly amused by the reference to "employer manipulation" of NLRB sponsored elections

Blatham just accused you of "fascile rejections", and this is one. There's a lot of actual hard facts out there about this subject, from which the TNR articles sample some illustrations. I reread them now, and barring a rhetorical flourish at the beginning and end, they are, if anything, wonky, fleshing out existing policies and how they are now implemented, manipulated or abused.

Employers do manipulate NLRB-sponsored elections. The second article cited a study of 400 union election campaigns in manufacturing plants in 1998 and 1999 that showed that 25% of employers involved fired at least one worker for union activity. The article also cited a specific case where a judge determined that a company used 36 different illegal tactics to block unionization at its plant.

A research report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research that was linked in on the thread found "a steep rise in the 2000s relative to the last half of the 1990s in illegal firings of pro-union workers". A rise that resulted in an about one-in-seven chance for union organizers and activists to be illegally fired while trying to organize unions at their place of work.

A report on the Chicago area, also linked in in the thread, reinforced those findings: it found that 30% of employers faced with organizing campaigns fire pro-union workers, 49% of them threaten to close a worksite when workers try to form a union when only 2% actually do, and 91% force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors.

Companies follow the advice of people like Employee Relations Consultant Philip Wilson (page linked in on the thread) to hold at least five "captive audience meetings", where employees are obliged to attend meetings where the horrible dangers of unionising are spelled out - even as unions are refused to even talk to part of the personnel.

In theory, the NLRB is supposed to bar such employer harassment. In practice, it is ineffectual, and the penalties for violating labor laws are relatively meaningless. In practice, under Bush's appointees, the NLRB has consistently sided with employers, and refused to penalise companies that violated the National Labor Relations Act. It even ruled in favour of the company cited above that a judge had found to have used 36 different illegal tactics to block unionization.

Whenever a related case came up, the NRLB under Bush has stripped people of even the relative protection its supervision of union elections provides. It helped blocked the right to organise temporary, subcontracted or apprentice workers. And disabled janitors? No right to unionise. Nurses who in the course of their work set schedules for other nurses? No right to unionise, because they are now judged to be "supervisors" - never mind that they have little or no control over wages and workplace conditions.

The latter ruling is the one that the first article in the thread calls "the biggest victory" for business at the Bush-era NRLB yet. Why? Because it strips everyone who performs even minor supervisory roles - software programmers who serve as team leaders, nurses who have aides, scientists who have lab assistants - of the right to unionise. As the article points out, "the decision could prevent as many as eight million workers .. from joining unions."

Note: for 60 years, the NLRB interpreted the legislation one way; now, the Bush appointees depart from this long-standing reading in order to forbid up to 8 million people from unionising.

About 40% of public employees in the USA do not have the right to organize a legally established union, says Wikipedia. That is stunning. I bet there are few if any democratic, Western countries that deny so many of their citizens the right to join a union.

I do regret not keeping up that other thread, but the detail is there for those who want to see. Now you prefer to brush away all such detailed enough info as above as mere "polemics and propaganda" as long as it is found in articles from left-leaning magazines (and mind you, it's not like The New Republic has been particularly leftwing the last decade or so - they endorsed Lieberman in the Democratic 04 primaries for pete's sake. The Daily Kos it is not.) But yes, since you wont find labor issues coverage in headline coverage anymore, that neatly inoculates you from learning about the very things you brush away as non-existing because you dont see it around you yourself.

It must be a neat way of creating a self-confirming universe, where a wearily cast eye sees only what reinfoirces one's own long-standing beliefs. But instructive it can not be, which must be why after a few years, your posts do indeed start to sound like an "endless regrinding of the same old arguments". You are certainly far more kind and articulate than your fellow conservatives here, but in the end many of your posts can be summarised in pretty much the same way as theirs: liberals bad, conservatism good, Europe loathsome, Hillary dangerous, any errors on our side minor and corrigeable, critics misguided and deluded. There's not really a lot more there there than that in these boilerplate answers: detail is missing, there's just the sweeping ideological overview, and nothing much else.

Cyclo, whom you rebuked for having "a lot to learn" still, is often less sophisticated in wording in his arguments than you are, but at least he is still hungry for new information, for discovering new things, new perspectives, and God forbid, even things he might have been wrong about and could still change course on. Asherman, however erudite he is on some topics, is at the other end of the scale in his stultified ideological rigor. You are certainly a lot more likable and companionable, but how much of a difference is there still, really?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 11:10 am
blatham wrote:

george

You are, and I say this simply to alert you, about two hundred nautical miles past redemption.

As regards 'projection', it isn't a notion I find much helpful because of the circularity problem. But you deserved a quick poke in the eye for your fascile rejection of Thomasky's piece.

Take, for example, your final paragraph above. Then, let's compare it to the very first sentence in Tomasky's second paragraph...
Quote:
We can regret, as it is customary to do, the loss of civility in political discourse (although such laments tend to assume a golden era that wasn't quite as civil in reality as it is in the memories of those who mourn its passing).


You've fallen back, again, on your fundamental means of avoiding close study and discernment... "there's nothing new under the sun" or its variant... "every one/ every thing/ every time period are all the same". Of course, what you are doing is like someone insisting that the Pope and Pol Pot are not distinguishable in any important way. Knowing a fair bit about both men, you would properly assume that someone voicing such a shallow comparison doesn't actually have the necessary knowledge to warrant his certainty.


Very well stated - though I don't fully agree. I think you will concede that you have somewhat overstated my position, undoubtedly as a means of making the point. It is simply an observable fact that, throughout recorded history, most contemporary commentary on events wrongfully emphasize current 'hot' issues that quickly fade in significance over time. Worse they just as often miss the truly significant events and trends that are taking place.

Examples abound. The most vivid is the contemporary reviews of the speeches given by Edward Everett and President Abraham Linciln at the dedication of the cemetary at Gettysberg, PA. However there are numerous others - read some contemporary reports of the 1948 election campaign between Dewey and Truman; or 1952, when Stevenson did all he could to distance himself from Truman while trying to distinguish his positions from those of Eisenhower. Very little of that overheated rhetoric seems relevant to today's understanding of those events. Recall also the fascination of the Western intellectual, chattering class with the Soviet experiment in authoritarian socialism during the 1930s, and their persistent blindness and denial of the, even then obvious, slaughter and tyranny being carried out in its name.

I did indeed note the caveat with which Tomasky opened his diatribe, and which you quoted above. However, what followed was so one-sided and so evocative of exactly the extreme "incivility" that he lamented in his references to the past that it made the whole thing a bit ridiculous - rather more emphasizing the obvious point that he should have known better, than the notion that the "Right" this time is really, really bad, as he clearly intended.

I'm not advocating ignorance of the contemporary issues or the objective elements of the public debate. Far from it - instead I am suggesting that a steady diet of the polemics and opinion pieces of either side will more likely fill one's mind with so much dross that real understanding wiill likely be the first casualty.

You suggest that I, "200 NM past redemption", am too imbued with the notion that nothing changes or that there is nothing new under the sun. That is certainly a possibility, though I certainly have not reached a position from which I cannot distinguish between the Pope and Pol Pot (depends on which Pope you have in mind).

I'm sure you will not deny the usefulness of history (recall the apt phrase of George Santayana - "Those who cannot understand history are condemned to repeat it") as a guide to the understanding of contemporary events. I believe you give too much attention and emphasis to various conspiracy theories, arising out of the overheated polemics of the usual debate, that experience suggests represent only transient events rather loosely related to the real trends of the time.

Somewhere, between these views wisdom and right understanding may be found. Unfortunately we can't be sure until the play is done.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 03:06 pm
George,

I apologise for the personal nature of the last two paragraphs of my above post. Sometimes it befits one to keep his thoughts to himself. There's no need to go vent our frustration about each other on top of all the political disagreements - just causes needless annoyance and doesnt add anything to the debate either.

So I was in the wrong there. Specially since I know you're a good guy, in the end - once you strip away the politics, I mean. ;-)

The rest of my post stands, though.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 04:22 pm
nimh,

No need to apologize. You won't hurt my feelings merely by criticizing my ideas. Besides, I think you run the risk of becoming every bit as 'stultified in your particular ideological rigor' as you accuse Asherman of being in his. Having a particular set of beliefs or a particular world view does not necessarily close one's mind to new information - whether that world view is of the left or the right politically. Conversely the absence of any particular structure of thought does not necessarily facilitate the assimilation of new information or ideas. They are independent things, though it appears to me that you are not only confusing them, but are also a bit blind to your own somewhat fixed perspective.

I think you are a good guy too - even in spite of your wrong-headed ideas - and I do enjoy the discourse with you.

With respect to the union matters, you have listed a series of complaints and criticisms all from the perspective of union organizers: nothing from the other perspective. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has tried to alter the biases of the NLRB, just as did the previous Clinton Administrations under then Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. Both were acting to carry out the policies of the elected President, and doing so generally within the confines of the law.

I find it amazing that you imply that a union election process based on the unsupervised and public collection of "chits" from workers, collected by union organizers themselves, would be a more reliable indicator of the actual will of the workforce than would a supervised secret ballot conducted by an unbiased third party. Our laws still permit employers to campaign against the forced unionization of their employees, and even to fire employees for disruptive actions in the workplace. It is common enough for unions to claim that any employer retaliation for the illegal actions of their organizers and supporters are necessarily merely "anti union activity" by the company. The truth is a bit more complex than that.

As I indicated, I have a great deal of experience dealing with unions as a company manager. The best thing one can say about them is that occasionally they aren't as retrograde & backward as they usually are. It is simply a fact that most unionized American companies and industries are failing, while their non union competitors are thriving. Moreover, even with a very competitive market for employees in this low unemployment economy, the non union companies are having very little trouble in attracting and keeping new workers.

Unions enjoy - and demand - a government enforced monopoly on the representation of workers in companies and industries they successfully organize. Like most monopolistic organizations they become immune to market forces and the actual achievement of the benefits they promise. They tend to prefer visible confrontation to collaboratively working out improvements that may improve both the worker's lot and the economic health of the enterprise on which their jobs depend - this to sustain the illusion that they perform a needed function. They resist adaptive changes - even ones that benefit those they supposedly represent. I have seen all this numerous times - and damn little else.

The class warfare and labor-management struggle concepts on which unionism grew in the early industrial age has become an anachronism in the post-industrial economies of the modern world. It is remarkable that so many folks cling to these outmoded ideas. It must be a result of being stultified in an ancient ideological rigor.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 06:30 pm
Thanks George. I've crossposted my post above and your response in the unions thread.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 06:41 pm
An article that will make you enthusiastic! (I've moved the odd paragraph break for clarity.)

Quote:
Has John Edwards' Moment Arrived?

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0711/john_edwards_1102.jpg
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards addresses a Town Hall meeting in Exeter, N.H., Monday, Oct. 29, 2007.

Time
Nov. 02, 2007

A pitch perfect debate performance, key union endorsements and a bold new television ad campaign: Could this be the moment that presidential candidate John Edwards finally gets some momentum?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 07:57 pm
Do check out that Edwards video - it's one of those you'll love or hate. I love it. I've linked it in here on my new campaign commercials thread.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 08:16 pm
About that Democratic election debate: the NY Times has made another stunningly neat interactive gadget about it:

Democratic Debate: Analyzing the Details

The Video Transcript tab is relatively straightforward: see the video and the full transcript side-by-side, with the option to jump to sections in the transcript.

But click the Transcript Analyzer tab, and more neatness appears. You see at one glance how long each candidate spoke, when and about what - Hillary, Obama and to a lesser extent Edwards got to spek the most. But you can even search for any word and see at a glance when, how often, and by whom it was used.

Eg, Iraq was mentioned 42 times during the debate, most often by Edwards and Hillary, and Iran even 60 times, most often by Hillary and Kucinich. Bush was mentioned 47 times, more than half of which by Hillary. The constitution was mentioned 6 times, all by Kucinich. Health: 39 times, again most often by Hillary and Kucinich.

But "poverty" was only ever mentioned once, by Obama, talking about a program for seniors. "Environmental" was said twice, by Obama and Kucinich. Nobody uttered the word "unemployment". "Families" were mentioned 8 times, 5 of which by Hillary. Women 7 times, 4 times by Hillary and thrice by Edwards. Nobody mentioned "blacks" or "Afro-Americans", "latino" was said once, by Obama. "Non-proliferation" was mentioned three times, by Obama and Kucinich.
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 07/03/2022 at 04:51:51