Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

woiyo wrote:

Arnold is actually DOING SOMETHING. He is holding the Feds responsible for their inaction.

Arnold is a Governor. It's an executive office, so he can do things. Hillary is a Senator - all she can do is propose legislation, and as long as you have Bush wielding his veto and a reliable 40+ Republican minority in the Senate, there's not much she can do. Switch their positions around and they would be in each other's place. <shrugs>

That said, I'm glad we apparently agree on the common sense of these emission standards. Sometimes pragmatism has to trump ideological concerns like George's.

Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 337 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 291 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).

and so you'll go back to middle-ground Clintonianism like in the 90s again at best.

woiyo wrote:

Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 337 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 291 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).

For six of the seven years concerned here, there was a Republican majority in the Senate, a Republican majority in the House, a Republican President, and a Republican Party hellbent on marginalising any initiative coming from the Democrats. These are not the 70s or even 90s anymore. There was very little opportunity to get any bill through that didnt fit the Republican agenda hook, line and sinker. Of course a Democratic Senator wasnt going to get many bills passed.

And you know, I wish I could say that the same would be true next year if the Democrats win these elections. That they will steamroll through their own agenda with no interest in compromise of Senate-wide consensus, and conservative Republicans will be left to throw up one after the other bill that doesnt stand a chance, just like it was true for Clinton so far.

Alas, the Democrats dont possess that kind of ruthless bloody-mindedness, and so you'll go back to middle-ground Clintonianism like in the 90s again at best.

If you examine all the records of the Senators running for President, none have records that are better or worse than the Clintons. The problem in this country is partisen politics and no one wants to "give in" to the other side, even if the "other side" is right.

Hopefully, based upon the lowest poll numbers in history for this congress, the citizens are waking up to this fact.

When will you?

Keep in mind that Hillary was the first to understand (or at least state publicly) that a vast rightwing machine had evolved and that its nature was ruthless, extremist, and power hungry.

Dumb move. The very last thing the Clinton campaign (or any dem campaign) wants to do is follow the model of the Bush's faux townhalls and planted questioners (Jeff Gannon...81/2 inches uncut).

MM...you really gotta stop getting your info from Fox. If you want to get smarter and wiser, that is. If not, continue.

blatham wrote:

Dumb move. The very last thing the Clinton campaign (or any dem campaign) wants to do is follow the model of the Bush's faux townhalls and planted questioners (Jeff Gannon...81/2 inches uncut).

MM...you really gotta stop getting your info from Fox. If you want to get smarter and wiser, that is. If not, continue.

Would you like me to see if I can find the story in another newsservice?

Does the fact that it came from Fox make it any less valid?
Or are you saying that since it came from Fox it must be untrue?

Your Fox-mind shows up in "she did a poor job in the debate". She didn't. She was likely hurt a bit (and that's reflected in some polls) by the attacks from her competitors and from the nature of the DL matter put to her the way Russert put it to her. But to say she did a poor job in the debate is a typical and predictable talking point out of Fox [..]

nimh said

Quote:

and so you'll go back to middle-ground Clintonianism like in the 90s again at best.

I hope not, though it is my fundamental concern as well. And I think there is reason to consider that my hope isn't empty. For one thing, I think that the american left, particularly its activist community, understands now far more acutely the nature of the fight they are in. Keep in mind that Hillary was the first to understand (or at least state publicly) that a vast rightwing machine had evolved and that its nature was ruthless, extremist, and power hungry. For another, and Krugman is the fellow to turn to here, there are broad indications that traditional liberal values and social policies are likely to be increasingly supported through demographic change and economic realities.

"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser

Summary:

A "terrible" performance

The dominant political story of the past week and a half has been Hillary Clinton's performance in the October 30 Democratic presidential debate. During and immediately after the debate, the general consensus was certainly not that Clinton had fallen on her face. As Eric Boehlert explained this week:

What was interesting about the debate was that commentators who later described the night as a train wreck for Clinton were surprisingly subdued as the debate unfolded in real time. It was only later, as the pundits fed off each other and whipped themselves into a frenzy, that the reviews become increasingly harsh, to the point where it was written in Beltway stone that Clinton had absolutely bombed during the debate; a "debacle."

But again, as it unfolded live, that's not how it was reported. For instance, live-blogging the debate at abcnews.com, Rick Klein, who later hyped the dire debate consequences for Clinton at ABC's The Note, wrote at 9:33 p.m.: "Clinton is strong, concise, and sharp tonight. She is finding ways to contrast herself with the Bush administration even while defending herself."

By 10:35 p.m., Klein wished the two-hour debate was over already: "The last few minutes remind me of why debates should end at 90 minutes. Less energy on the stage, and fewer interesting things to be said."

Time's Ana Marie Cox also wrote about the debate in real time. At 10:53 p.m., Cox wrote that Clinton had made her "first mistake of the night" -- an hour and 53 minutes into the debate, and about nine minutes before the end.

But as the media feeding frenzy continued, the pundit class convinced themselves that Clinton had turned in the worst debate performance in years. It was "terrible," the New York Post announced more than a week later.

Time's Mark Halperin declared it "disastrous" and a "failure." According to Halperin, Clinton was "shrill" and "too hot tempered." The Politico's Roger Simon agreed that Clinton "really" had a "bad night" -- but Simon insisted that Clinton "seemed largely emotionless and detached." Given that two such esteemed journalists agreed that Clinton had a horrible night, but did so based on directly contradictory reasons, it's easy to suspect that no matter what Clinton had done during the debate, the pundits would have criticized her.

So constant were the negative reviews of her performance, Clinton ultimately said in an interview that she hadn't been at her best during the debate.

Perhaps the best indication that the "disastrous performance" story line is overblown is that Slate's Mickey Kaus has been promoting it. Kaus is in full-on Clinton Campaign Death Watch mode, endlessly hyping the latest sign that Clinton is just days away from falling behind Dick Cheney in the Democratic primary campaign. In recent days, he has declared Clinton's campaign to be "flailing," announced that "Hillary has now used two of what she must have considered the most powerful weapons in her arsenal ... and they both backfired," and speculated that further discussion of immigration policy would "just about do it for her" -- meaning, end her campaign. Kaus has compared Clinton to Mike Dukakis and made what even he acknowledges is the "cheapest" reference to right-wing smears about Clinton having an affair with a female staffer.

blatham wrote:

nimh said

Quote:

and so you'll go back to middle-ground Clintonianism like in the 90s again at best.

I hope not, though it is my fundamental concern as well. And I think there is reason to consider that my hope isn't empty. For one thing, I think that the american left, particularly its activist community, understands now far more acutely the nature of the fight they are in. Keep in mind that Hillary was the first to understand (or at least state publicly) that a vast rightwing machine had evolved and that its nature was ruthless, extremist, and power hungry. For another, and Krugman is the fellow to turn to here, there are broad indications that traditional liberal values and social policies are likely to be increasingly supported through demographic change and economic realities.

My recollection is that Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" charge was an attempt to deflect attention from the emerging facts that Bill's problems with lawsuits from Paula Jones, depositions with her attorney's, public allegations of rape emerging from another woman in Little Rock, and repeaded denials over the banalities of the Monica Lewinski comedy were all unravelling. It appeared that he (and perhaps she) found it convenient to blame it all on someone else. That hardly counts as a prescient discovery of a developing, but as yet hidden, evil force.

But if you have this right, I'll apologize to MM.

Does Nimh wish to see a return to the good ole time Religion of real Democrats like Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, and Mike Dukakis?? Perhaps he wishes to reach farther back to FDR and Huey Long. Are things a bit slow out there in Hungary or wherever he is now? How are the Poles doing with only one twin?