0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:15 pm
george wrote
Quote:
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...

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.


george

Make it 199.3 NM past redemption. Not a lot of improvement but it ought to be noted nonetheless.

It's not at all clear, despite your first paragraph, why you would bother attending to contemporary matters at all. You describe what a person focusing on the contemporary american political scene might see visible in any present period...'polemics' and 'dross'.

Of course, your suggestion is that historical study allows a superior or more balanced perspective on change...on what is important or worthy of our attention or concerns. I have no reason to argue against this sense of the worth of historical study.

But whatever it is that does concern you (worry or cheer you or any history student) will makes its appearance in the present. As 'polemics' and 'dross' will always constitute much of what any period delivers up, how do you determine what is worthy of concern? What is it you look at or measure in the present to determine the 'health' of american politics, if anything?

Let me put it to you that what can arise which ought to concern us will not be something new. It won't stand up in a red suit and yellow hat and wave while blowing on a kazoo. It will be something(s) in the polemics or in the dross which has always been attendent but is changing in terms of its magnitude or proportion.

But let me put that earlier question to you....what is it you measure to determine the health of your polity?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 5 Nov, 2007 12:20 pm
nimh wrote:
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.


Jesus...ain't that cool! Richardson, in a subsequent interview, said "they just didn't call on me". He's right and it's immediately evident on this gizmo. Thanks nimh.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Tue 6 Nov, 2007 07:08 am
Edwards accuses Clinton of duplicity
Nov 5 11:23 PM US/Eastern




View larger image

John Edwards, one of Hillary Clinton's top rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, charged her Monday of duplicity and of facilitating a White House drive to war against Iran.

Former vice presidential nominee Edwards further sharpened his rhetoric against the former first lady, as the Democratic race heated up two months before the first party nominating contests.

He hammered Clinton for voting for a Senate resolution in September which called for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

"Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire," Edwards said, referring to two crucial early-voting states.

"She's giving the administration exactly what it wants again."

Edwards also warned in a speech in Iowa City, that the Bush administration was trying to use attacks on US forces in Iraq, to justify a war with Iran.

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071106032257.3lxv4s0v&show_article=1
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 6 Nov, 2007 09:48 pm
Alterman on one aspect of the debate and the beltway media generally (Russert specifically)... hear! hear!
Quote:
I see Meet the Press is turning 60. I never see the show myself, and so there are better people to critique it than I, but I did read the transcript of Tim Russert's moderation of the Democratic presidential debate last week, and it was shocking.

Take a look at this exchange:

RUSSERT: I want to ask each of you the same question. Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

CLINTON: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

RUSSERT: But you won't pledge?

CLINTON: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

RUSSERT: But they may.

CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Now, consider everything that is embedded in that question. First of all, who the hell is the journalist Tim Russert to demand a "pledge" on anything from a presidential candidate? Isn't he supposed to elicit information about their views? But more important, just what does it mean to "pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president"? I'll tell you what it means: It means a promise to begin an unprovoked nuclear war. For there is no way to ensure that Iran will not develop a nuke save using nukes on them ourselves. We don't even know what kind of nuclear program Iran has; we don't know if it's removable by conventional means. We don't have the troops to invade Iran, which is a stupid idea anyway, thanks to George W. Bush and company, and so the only way to be absolutely certain that Iran won't develop a nuclear bomb would be to promise to nuke it. But if Russert asked that question, he would sound like a lunatic. So he asked -- no, demanded -- of the candidates that they respond to his lunatic question as if he were the clever one and they were on the defensive. And this is the most influential television journalist in America. Reels the mind.
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/?f=h_column
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 6 Nov, 2007 09:52 pm
Quote:
http://www.kentucky.com/635/story/223268.html

This notwithstanding the typical attempt noted below...
Quote:
Source: Fletcher Telemarketing Company Not Involved with Bogus Robocall
By Eric Kleefeld - November 6, 2007, 5:30PM
An 800 number that has been identified as the source of the bogus anti-gay robocall in the Kentucky governor's race is one of the 800 numbers used by the same telemarketing company that does robocalls for the campaign of Gov. Ernie Fletcher and the Kentucky Republican Party. However, the company denies being responsible for the bogus robocalls that purported to come from a gay rights organization in Kentucky, praising Democratic nominee Steve Beshear for his support from the "homosexual lobby."
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/source_fletcher_telemarketing_company_not_involved_with_bogus_robocall.php
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 7 Nov, 2007 04:09 am
blatham wrote:
Now, consider everything that is embedded in that question. First of all, who the hell is the journalist Tim Russert to demand a "pledge" on anything from a presidential candidate? Isn't he supposed to elicit information about their views? But more important, just what does it mean to "pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president"? I'll tell you what it means: It means a promise to begin an unprovoked nuclear war. For there is no way to ensure that Iran will not develop a nuke save using nukes on them ourselves. We don't even know what kind of nuclear program Iran has; we don't know if it's removable by conventional means. We don't have the troops to invade Iran, which is a stupid idea anyway, thanks to George W. Bush and company, and so the only way to be absolutely certain that Iran won't develop a nuclear bomb would be to promise to nuke it. But if Russert asked that question, he would sound like a lunatic. So he asked -- no, demanded -- of the candidates that they respond to his lunatic question as if he were the clever one and they were on the defensive. And this is the most influential television journalist in America. Reels the mind.
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/?f=h_column[/quote]
Amen to that, and good on Hillary to persist in the only right answer.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Wed 7 Nov, 2007 04:09 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
http://www.kentucky.com/635/story/223268.html

This notwithstanding the typical attempt noted below...
Quote:
Source: Fletcher Telemarketing Company Not Involved with Bogus Robocall
By Eric Kleefeld - November 6, 2007, 5:30PM
An 800 number that has been identified as the source of the bogus anti-gay robocall in the Kentucky governor's race is one of the 800 numbers used by the same telemarketing company that does robocalls for the campaign of Gov. Ernie Fletcher and the Kentucky Republican Party. However, the company denies being responsible for the bogus robocalls that purported to come from a gay rights organization in Kentucky, praising Democratic nominee Steve Beshear for his support from the "homosexual lobby."
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/source_fletcher_telemarketing_company_not_involved_with_bogus_robocall.php


I received calls from that company, including the one with Pat Boone, and I must agree that the anti-gay calls didnt come from them.
There was nothing on that call that identified it as coming from the Fletcher campaign, like there was on the other call I got from them.

So, while I am glad Fletcher lost, and while I did vote for Steve Beshear, I seriously doubt if the anti-gay calls came from the Fletcher campaign.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 7 Nov, 2007 07:14 am
Bubba's damage control backfires. How dare anyone press Hillary for a straight answer. Laughing

Excerpt:

Hillary Clinton rivals take on Bill

By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bill Clinton was hit with caustic criticism Tuesday from his wife's Democratic rivals, who accused the popular former president of falsely comparing questions about her candor to smears of past campaigns.

In a presidential nomination fight growing more intense by the day, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama also criticized the former first lady for having voted in the Senate against incentives for ethanol production and higher fuel efficiency standards. And 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards challenged her to spell out what she would do about Iraq.

The week after Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused her rivals of "piling on," those foes showed no sign of easing up. They even went so far as to criticize the former president, a strategy that comes with risks in a party filled with voters who admire him for resurrecting the party in the 1990s.

On Monday, in defense of his wife against political critics, Bill Clinton cited the "swift boat" television ads of the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned John Kerry's patriotism and the campaign commercials in 2002 that suggested Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia was soft on terrorism.

Obama told The Associated Press he was "stunned" to hear Clinton make the comparison. Both Kerry, who commanded a Navy swift boat in Vietnam, and Cleland, who lost three limbs in that war, are decorated veterans who were defeated by Republicans.

Obama said Hillary Clinton contradicted herself at the end of a Democratic presidential debate last week when asked whether she supported a plan by the New York governor to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. This week, the Illinois senator and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina have repeatedly reproached her on that subject.

"How you would then draw an analogy to distorting somebody's military record is a reach," Obama said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_CLINTONS?SITE=ORBEN&SEC%20%20TION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Wed 7 Nov, 2007 07:17 am
To me, the Democrats, and specifically, the Clintons, are becoming a tired old act.

If the mantra is for "change" in Washington, why would the voters want to bring back the Clintons into office?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 7 Nov, 2007 07:23 am
'Change' is a tired old act too...I'm sick of that reason given ad nauseam in every presidential election.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Wed 7 Nov, 2007 07:49 am
Brand X wrote:
'Change' is a tired old act too...I'm sick of that reason given ad nauseam in every presidential election.


Agree. Only a true outsider can bring real change. Not sure if there is a real outsider in the whole lot of them, Especially the Clintons.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 04:48 am
mysteryman wrote:
I received calls from that company, including the one with Pat Boone, and I must agree that the anti-gay calls didnt come from them.
There was nothing on that call that identified it as coming from the Fletcher campaign, like there was on the other call I got from them.

Dont be naive - of course there wouldnt be.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 04:51 am
woiyo wrote:
If the mantra is for "change" in Washington, why would the voters want to bring back the Clintons into office?

Depends on how you look at it - a Clinton would certainly bring a drastic change with the last 8 years.

But yeah, I would rather see a fresh face and name too, obviously.

woiyo wrote:
To me, the Democrats, and specifically, the Clintons, are becoming a tired old act.

Then again, how meaningful is that? I mean, when's the last time there was a prominent national Democrat you were enthusiastic about?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 06:54 am
nimh wrote:
woiyo wrote:
If the mantra is for "change" in Washington, why would the voters want to bring back the Clintons into office?

Depends on how you look at it - a Clinton would certainly bring a drastic change with the last 8 years.

But yeah, I would rather see a fresh face and name too, obviously.

woiyo wrote:
To me, the Democrats, and specifically, the Clintons, are becoming a tired old act.

Then again, how meaningful is that? I mean, when's the last time there was a prominent national Democrat you were enthusiastic about?


JFK
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 07:07 am
Brand X wrote:
'Change' is a tired old act too...I'm sick of that reason given ad nauseam in every presidential election.

Well, there's Ron Paul. Definitely a change agent.

By recent polls, 75% of US citizens surveyed wish a change in direction. That's substantial. Further, Bush's favorables have now dropped lower than Richard Nixon just prior to resignation.

One might conclude from the above that folks wish something that might be described as anti-Bush. Wouldn't that be Clinton? Or to put this another way, if she isn't definable as anti-Bush then it must be the case that they are alike in important ways. What would those be?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 07:29 am
blatham wrote:
Brand X wrote:
'Change' is a tired old act too...I'm sick of that reason given ad nauseam in every presidential election.

Well, there's Ron Paul. Definitely a change agent.

By recent polls, 75% of US citizens surveyed wish a change in direction. That's substantial. Further, Bush's favorables have now dropped lower than Richard Nixon just prior to resignation.

One might conclude from the above that folks wish something that might be described as anti-Bush. Wouldn't that be Clinton? Or to put this another way, if she isn't definable as anti-Bush then it must be the case that they are alike in important ways. What would those be?


Using 'change' as a campaign tagline is what I'm tired of....just tell me what your plans are and I'll decide if it's change or the same.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 07:35 am
I understand and, to a degree, share your exhaustion with the mantra. There's that wonderful satirization of this constantly recurring cliche from The Big Lebowski...
Quote:
TOWN SQUARE

Ithaca, Mississippi. On a bunting-covered stage a pencil-necked man
with round rimless glasses addresses a crowd of rustics.

The pencil-neck is identified on posters as 'Homer Stokes, Friend of
the Little Man', and, in life as in the pictures, he shakes a broom
over his head. A midget in overalls stands next to him.

STOKES
And I say to you that the great state
a Mississippi cannot afford four more
years a Pappy O'Daniel - four more
years a cronyism, nepotism, rascalism
and service to the Innarests! The
choice, she's a clear 'un: Pappy
O'Daniel, slave a the Innarests; Homer
Stokes, servant a the little man! Ain't
that right, little fella?

The midget enthusiastically seconds:

MIDGET
He ain't lyin'!

STOKES
When the litle man says jump, Homer
Stokes says how high? And, ladies'n
jettymens, the little man has
admonished me to grasp the broom a
ree-form and sweep this state clean!

The midget waves his little midget broom in time with Stoke's waves.

It's gonna be back to the flour mill,
Pappy! The Innarests can take care a
theyselves! Come Tuesday, we gonna
sweep the rascals out! Clean gummint -
yours for the askin'!


But as an electoral cliche, we'll always have it, for the obvious reasons.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 07:59 am
Cute bit from Tim Grieve at Salon
Quote:
What was that again, Sen. Biden?
Here's Rudy Giuliani, asked by NBC's Brian Williams for his "personal feelings" on Hillary Clinton: " I know Hillary Clinton. I got to know her the best during September 11th. I almost ran against her, got prostate cancer, couldn't. Didn't really get to know her until September 11."

Giuliani went on to say that he had "great respect" for Clinton and for all of the other Democratic presidential candidates -- even, we suppose, the ones he didn't get to know on September 11th.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 09:37 am
woiyo wrote:
nimh wrote:
woiyo wrote:
To me, the Democrats, and specifically, the Clintons, are becoming a tired old act.

Then again, how meaningful is that? I mean, when's the last time there was a prominent national Democrat you were enthusiastic about?

JFK

Q.E.D.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 09:46 am
While the Clinton style may well be familiar and even "tired and old" to some, that shouldn't be confused with the likely policy initiatives of a Clinton Administration, if she wins. We have every reason to believe they will be materially different from those of the present administration.

Our familiarity enables us to better guess the prevarications and failings that may accompany a Clinton Administration. However we should remind ourselves that the other candidates (of either party) will likely have theirs too. Those who appear "fresh" and "new" merely have flaws that are (so far) hidden from view. (See how I am mentally preparing myself for the coming follies)

The excessive hype that increasingly accompanies our political campaigns is inevitably followed by excessive disappointment when reality replaces carefully crafted illusions, and the opposition begins its ritual of political pecking.
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 08/16/2022 at 07:17:25