Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

blatham wrote:

george
But how would you presume to know? You have never, and will never, do even the most cursory research into any such matter because it is more cognitively agreeable to quite purposefully keep yourself profoundly uneducated on such matters.

I don't believe that you can make a case that researching the matter in the partisan press will at all clarify the issue.

On what basis do you presume to know the inner truth of the matter?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
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?

Yes, thats it, things are just slow out here "in Hungary or wherever I am now" (hint: it's in my location line, still). I mean, what other reason could there possibly be for nimh to post about US politics?

You've really veered off into the outright pissy lately, George. But yes, for the record, I would love a return to FDR's politics. Dukakis, not so much.

Well, I'll concede you are quite interested in politics generally, here, in the Netherlands, France, the UK and other places. It just struck me as odd that you are evidently more into our version of the sound and fury than am I. I suppose I was a bit "pissy", and for that I apologize. I have on occasion had the same impression of you recently - must be the season.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

george
But how would you presume to know? You have never, and will never, do even the most cursory research into any such matter because it is more cognitively agreeable to quite purposefully keep yourself profoundly uneducated on such matters.

I don't believe that you can make a case that researching the matter in the partisan press will at all clarify the issue.

On what basis do you presume to know the inner truth of the matter?

"Inner truth"? That's meaningless. What's the 'inner truth' of viet nam or the Palestinian problem, george? If you wish to suggest something derogatory about me, at least write rational sentences.

"Partisan press"? What falls outside of this silly formulation, george? Is there any press or reporting which is not, in your opinion, partisan? How would you spot it? Do you read it? Do I read it? Do you never buy or read newspapers or watch tv news, george? Why ever would you bother? By your formulation, no knowledge or insight or learning can ever arise from the activity. Books? Probably partisan too, I guess, unless their subject involves events a century ago and where they were written in that beautiful past where men were men, historians were historians, and Liberace was merely colorful and flamboyant and just couldn't find the right woman.

My knowledge in this area is magnitudes greater than yours because I've put in a lot of time and the effort to study it. You haven't and never will, to a certainty. Why should you, after all. You already know everything there is to know about this subject of which you know pretty much nothing.

0 Replies

Bernie-

I think what George meant by-

Quote:

I don't believe that you can make a case that researching the matter in the partisan press will at all clarify the issue.

was that he could smell it. That he didn't need guidance. From either side.

That "research" is a process by which one looks to be reassured that one is on the right track. It's a form of entertainment.

I'm researching how to hold the beer price at its current levels and hopefully to reduce it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

"Inner truth"? That's meaningless. What's the 'inner truth' of viet nam or the Palestinian problem, george? If you wish to suggest something derogatory about me, at least write rational sentences.

"Partisan press"? What falls outside of this silly formulation, george? Is there any press or reporting which is not, in your opinion, partisan? How would you spot it? Do you read it? Do I read it? Do you never buy or read newspapers or watch tv news, george? Why ever would you bother? By your formulation, no knowledge or insight or learning can ever arise from the activity. Books? Probably partisan too, I guess, unless their subject involves events a century ago and where they were written in that beautiful past where men were men, historians were historians, and Liberace was merely colorful and flamboyant and just couldn't find the right woman.

My knowledge in this area is magnitudes greater than yours because I've put in a lot of time and the effort to study it. You haven't and never will, to a certainty. Why should you, after all. You already know everything there is to know about this subject of which you know pretty much nothing.

The inner truth to which I referred was the assumed purpose and understanding behind Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" remark. You claimed to know it. I suggested that it was unknowable and that there was a good case to be made for the proposition that she was merely attempting to distract a flood of criticism. My statement was thoroughly rational. I hope you are not suggesting your greater research into the matter in the popular press has enabled you to uncover the hidden truth. That would truly be irrational.

I don't believe the past is or was in any particular way better or more beautiful than the present. Only that its movements and currents - and the results obtained are, with the passage of time, more clearly understandable than those of the present, which are not only incomplete, but also obscured by the dust of partisan reporting. I don't advocate deliberate ignorance of events. Instead I prefer to form my own judgements of them and steer clear of the prefabricated opinions of others with an axe to grind. I read, watch and listen, but try hard to filter out the polemics and biases of both sides in these endless debates. I simply see more merit and utility in deflecting energy and time from studying contemporary analysis to that of history where the issues and outcomes can be seen more reliably and still applicable lessons can be derived.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
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?

No, that story is true. And the move was dumb and I don't like it. And it was dumb precisely because of why I said it was. It follows the deceitful and unprincipled examples exemplified by Bush's PR procedures (townhalls where questions are fed and where no one who might ask something awkward is even allowed in the door, or Jeff Gannon, etc).

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 which you swallow without much thought.

And blatham, since the planting of questions is apparently true, what do you think about Hillary saying "Well it was news to me."?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310417,00.html

Ha ha is my first reaction. I have a very simple question, if her aides are planting favorable questions that she wants, how do her aides know which questions she wants without her knowing it? Just a simple question, but this strikes me as probably just another Clinton lie. After all, the pattern is well known. I think she did know about this, and she has told her aides which questions she would like, otherwise how do they know which ones she is prepared for? She can still say it was news to her, as a news article is still news whether she knows about it or not ahead of time. I think this is another case of parsing words. It gets to where you can read their minds.

0 Replies

nimh wrote

Quote:

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

Well to be fair I think Butrflynet has the number here. It wasnt just Fox News, no -- but it was a serious case of the punditry class collectively whipping itself into a near-frenzy after the fact.

It's not the first time (and it's not only happened to Hillary) that the commentators and journalists report on someone's performance in quite measured ways as the debate is still unfolding, but then when they notice a consensus among their colleagues developing over the evening and following day (someone "ran away with" the debate or performed "disastrously"), fall into line and really magnify and whip up that story.

It's a kind of sad pack herd mentality, but they make their living by coming up with some clear, stark, preferably sensational story, so that's what they do, and their place in the punditry pecking order depends on not diverging too much from the expected talking points, so thats how it goes.

Yes to all. Thus, an apology here to MM. Fox clearly was not alone in forwarding the notion.

0 Replies

george said

Quote:

The inner truth to which I referred was the assumed purpose and understanding behind Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" remark.

You deceive yourself. This was my sentence...

Quote:

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.

This is a claim about the existence of a 'vast rightwing machine' and a claim regarding who originally made public mention of it. There's no claim regarding her (impossible to know 'inner truth') motives or her internal mental state. The person making such a claim about motive and inner truth is you...

Quote:

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.

Quote:

You claimed to know it.

Clearly, you make that claim to knowledge, though hedging with "my recollection" regardless that there's no way you could recollect her intention which you claim was in her noggin or probably in her noggin.

Quote:

I hope you are not suggesting your greater research into the matter in the popular press has enabled you to uncover the hidden truth. That would truly be irrational.

There's nothing so minor as a 'suggestion' here. It is an explicit claim that I know much more concerning this matter than you do because you haven't studied it in the slightest, presuming you already know, whereas I have studied the matter to a depth of which you have little inkling. You attempt to minimize or invalidate my understanding of the matter through the implication that the "popular press" or the "partisan press" has no worth as a data source.

Here, you are dishonest and inevitably incoherent and self-contradictory. After all, how could you arrive at your 'understanding' of why Hillary said what she said other than through your own belief that that popular/partisan press was providing you with trustworthy information about it? How could you conclude my thesis is erroneous outside of your faith in the information you've picked up on the matter? Wherever did you get such information?

And of course you didn't answer any of my questions regarding what you attend to re contemporary news/analyses and why you would ever bother, given your implication that these sources are worthless. And you won't because clear thought and clear answers to them will show your argument, such as it is, is incoherent because it is immediately self-contradictory.

And you self-deceive in another aspect. You attribute my 'information' to 'the popular/partisan press'. Emotionally convenient for you, I suppose, to make this attribution to information sources which you (incoherently) deride. But of course, it would be a tad difficult for you to have the 'inner truth' on what sits on blatham's bookshelf or resides in my 'documents' file.

Why not be honest and admit that you actually know **** about this matter because you've already decided it cannot be so, thus any study into the matter would have no purpose for you. I'll settle for that level of honesty, george and I'm not even requesting you make the further and obvious step of self-reflection on how you manage to live with this level of incoherence and self-contradiction.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well, I'll concede you are quite interested in politics generally, here, in the Netherlands, France, the UK and other places. It just struck me as odd that you are evidently more into our version of the sound and fury than am I.

Well, I'm a politics geek, and more specifically a geek re elections, results, polls, the attendant demographics, etc. But yeah, that's certainly not something to envy. :wink:

Why I talk more about US politics than about elections elsewhere here has mostly to do with the character of the site.. it's, what, 80% Americans here? I do slog on with threads about other countries as well, and I realise some posters even appreciate it, too, but there's nothing of the to and fro that you get on the US threads, nothing like the same interest or conversation, so they kind of tend to fall by the wayside more. I mean, I usually just post news stories now.

A2K has in turn influenced what I keep track of, too. I mean, the more replies you see about a thread, the more you post about it yourself and look things up about the subject again, the more your curiosity is piqued by what you find, and so you start following it continuously. So that's also been part of why I've come to follow US politics this closely, rather than, say, British, or Central European politics, which I've had periods of following up this closely in the past.

I mean, that and of course the bottom line reason that everything you do there will yield consequences that all of us earthlings have to live with, to a degree thats not the case with any other country..

georgeob1 wrote:

I suppose I was a bit "pissy", and for that I apologize. I have on occasion had the same impression of you recently - must be the season.

It might well be.. darkening autumn days.

0 Replies

Crossposting some info from the Obama thread:

------------------------------------------

Good news for the Obama camp from three new polls out in New Hampshire since the last debate:

A new poll taken 2-7 November by the University of New Hampshire for the Boston Globe has Clinton at 35%, down 6 compared to a month and a half ago, Obama at 21%, which is up 2, and Edwards at 15%, up 4.

A new poll taken 2-6 November by the Marist College has Clinton at 38%, down 5 compared to a month ago, Obama at 26%, which is up 5, and Edwards at 14%, up 2.

A new "robo-poll" taken 5 November by Rasmussen has Clinton at 34%, down 6 compared to a month and a half ago, Obama at 24%, which is up 7, and Edwards at 15%, up 1.

To put this in perspective, compare (1) the average scores from the seven polls that came out in the previous month and a half, with (2) the average of these three new polls:

Clinton
40,8%
35,7% (-5,1%)

Obama
20,9%
23,7% (+2,8%)

Edwards
11,9%
14,7% (+2,8%)

Some other interesting detail from the UNH poll and the Marist poll. Note that this is all just in New Hampshire, so trends may differ nationally - though in practice most of this seems in line with what comes up in national polls as well.

The voters simply don't know yet

The UNH poll found that just 24% of likely voters in the Democratic primary had "definitely decided" whom they would vote for. Another 28% is leaning to a candidate. But a full 48% was still "trying to decide" (a proportion that reached 60% in the Republican primary).

Independent and moderate/conservative voters especially were still unsure about whom to support, more so than Democrats and liberals.

Of the three main candidates, Hillary has the strongest grip on her supporters - but that's not necessarily saying much. Of those who ended up choosing Hillary in the poll, only 35% had definitively decided - whereas 29% of those opting for Obama and 22% of those answering Edwards had. A third of Hillary, and almost half of Obama voters, were in fact still "trying to decide".

The Marist poll has the proportions of those "strongly supporting" their candidate of choice much higher, but the difference between the candidates is the same. 64% of likely Hillary voters support her "strongly", while just 49% of Obama voters and 46% of Edwards voters does so.
There is no anti-Hillary camp in the primary

Here on A2K, there have been a lot of us who sympathised with either Obama or Edwards or some other candidate, but mostly just did not want Hillary nominated. That's been a fairly typical pattern across the liberal political crowd on blogs and the like, so the assumption is often made that there is an anti-Hillary electorate in the primary.

Consequently, the assumption goes, if either Obama or Edwards should drop out, his votes can be expected to mostly switch to the other. This has been behind much of the talk that no solid Anyone-But-Hillary candidate has been able to emerge exactly because of how Obama and Edwards have splintered that vote.

The Marist poll is not the first one to belie this assumption. It asked respondents also for their second choice. Turns out that Obama voters would switch to Clinton in far greater numbers (35%) than to Edwards (20%), and vice versa Edwards voters would be twice as likely to switch to Clinton (34%) as to Obama (18%).
Hillary shows up the gender gap

Hillary does far better among women than among men. Vice versa, Edwards does noticably better among men. In the UNH poll, 40% of women and just 27% of men opted for Hillary. In the Marist poll the difference was even bigger: 45% of women and 23% of men chose Hillary. Obama runs practically equal among men and women, but Edwards gets 18% of the male vote and just 11-13% of the female vote.
Hillary appeals to the base

The UNH poll shows Hillary polling 38% among Democrats, and just 22% among the much smaller group of Independents. The Marist poll shows the same difference more modestly: 39% of Democrats and 33% of Indies.

For Obama it's the other way round: 19% among Democrats vs 29% among the Indies according to UNH; 19% among Democrats vs 32% among Indies according to Marist. This can be a problem, because while in NH independents can vote in the Dem primary, this is not true in many other states.
Hillary appeals to the poor and lower-educated; Obama does better the richer and more educated people are

The slopes are very stark. In the UNH poll, Hillary beats Obama 54% to 9% (!) among those with high school or less, and 43% to 21% among those with some college. But among college graduates and postgraduates the two are practically tied: 27-28% for Hillary vs 24-26% for Obama.

The Marist poll has only two categories, but it echoes those results: Hillary wins those without college graduation by 46% to 20% for Obama; among college graduates they are practically tied at 29%/28%. And that contrast has noticably sharpened still over the last month.

Same with income. Among those earning less than $30,000, the UNH poll says, Hillary whoops Obama 42% to 12%, and Edwards actually outdoes Obama in both income groups up to $60,000. But among those earning $100,000 or more, Hillary and Obama are almost tied at 31% to 28%, with Edwards coming in at a paltry 9%.

These class differences appear to be echoed when respondents are asked what is the most important issue in the primary. 36% of Obama voters says Iraq; just 21% and 16% of Hillary and Edwards voters does. Conversely, 40% of Edwards and 38% of Hillary voters says health care; just 26% of Obama voters says so. The economy again is mentioned far more often by Hillary and Edwards voters than by Obama voters.

The Marist poll disagrees with the above numbers on Edwards, but shows the same trends for the two front runners. Hillary does best among those for whom health care is the most important issue (49% to 20% for Obama), and worst among those who prioritize Iraq (29% for Hillary and 27% for Obama).
Hillary is the "strongest leader"; Obama "most trustworthy"

Respondents in the UNH poll were asked which candidate best fit a number of characteristics. Hillary won convincingly on "strongest leader", with 45% of the vote, versus just 17% for Obama and 8% for Edwards. Even a quarter of Obama and Edwards sympathisers opted for Hillary on that question.

Hillary also sweeps home on "best chance of beating GOP candidate in 2008": 53% said she was the one, versus just 17% for Obama and 10% for Edwards. Marist has almost identical numbers on that question: 53% said Hillary; 17% Obama and 13% Edwards.

Hillary clearly leads the pack in the UNH poll on having the "most experience" as well, with 47% of choices versus 14% for Richardson, 10% for Edwards and just 4% for Obama.

Obama on the other hand eeks out a lead on "most trustworthy", with 26% to 19% for both Hillary and Edwards. He also does at least relatively well on a campaign theme he's been putting up: when it comes to who "has shown best judgment", he ties Hillary at 24%. But Obama is narrowly beaten on who "can bring needed change to US", with 31% opting for Hillary, 26% for him and 13% for Edwards.
Actual positions of candidate sometimes appear to matter little

There's crosstabs in the UNH poll on respondent's opinions about individual issues and how it correlates to their choice of candidate. They are sometimes surprising.

For example, when asked "What Should be Done with US Troops in Iraq?", 22% answers, withdraw now, and 20% says, stay as long as needed, with the rest opting for a mushy in-between answer.

Now Edwards is the most radical opponent of the war, with Obama a clear second, while Hillary is the most hawkish of the three. This is what we know - the geeks who actually follow all the politics news. So it's a sobering realisation of sorts to see that the withdraw-now respondents actually make up 24% of Hillary's voters and just 14-15% of Obama and Edwards voters; and that vice versa, 29% of Obama voters and just 13% of Hillary voters wants to stay as long as needed. No correlation with the candidates' actual positions. (If anything it's Bill Richardson who's apparently established himself as the all-out anti-war candidate.)

On the same note, Edwards may have been running as a lefty populist, but both polls still show him doing slightly better among moderates than among liberals. That may be because of lingering impressions from '04; or it may - just speculating - be a function of him being the (southern) white male in the race, assuming that outright liberals are more comfortable with a black or female President than moderates. If it's the latter, unfortunate though the background is, that could play out well for him: he gets to be the progressive champion on the issues and yet keep an advantage of sorts among the moderate/conservative crowd simply because of who he is, in comparison with his rivals.

0 Replies

It regression of Hillary will get worse.

'Clinton's planted student speaks out, says she just wants honesty
Tue Nov 13 2007 08:17:37 ET

The college student who says she was told what question to ask at one of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events--and whose story in her campus newspaper has now made its way around the world--said Monday that "voters have a right to know what happened, adding that she "wasn't the only one at the event who was a plant."

In an exclusive taped interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said that giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Gallo-Chasanoff, an undecided voter, said what happened was really pretty simple: she says a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech she gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said.

"'I don't think that's a good idea," the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, "because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans."

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

If she is unable to answer questions without knowing the question, how will she handel being questioned by other World Leaders as well as Congress?

I think by now, people are starting to realize that this Clinton chircharadeover and they will be out.

0 Replies

Personally, I find the intellectual acuity of both drudge and woiyo to be most compelling. Clearly that's it for Hillary now.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Personally, I find the intellectual acuity of both drudge and woiyo to be most compelling. Clearly that's it for Hillary now.

Blatham, I know its tough to face the truth, so you will have tough sledding from here on, as you staunchly want to believe in Hillary. Good luck in your journey to enlightenment. As Dan Rather used to say, "Courage."

0 Replies

John Edwards:

"If we replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats, nothing will change," he told reporters in a post-Farmers Union speech press availability. "We had a Democratic congress and a Democratic president in the early '90s and the corporate interests and their lobbyists still" got their way, he said.

The Clinton campaign's use of a plant at a press conference was "what George Bush does," Edwards said. "George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened.That's not the way democracy works."

"We don't stage questions," he added, tying his new critcism to his post-Philadelphia debate critique. "We go in and answer the questions that are asked."

(Source: theGarance)

0 Replies

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:
Personally, I find the intellectual acuity of both drudge and woiyo to be most compelling. Clearly that's it for Hillary now.

Blatham, I know its tough to face the truth, so you will have tough sledding from here on, as you staunchly want to believe in Hillary. Good luck in your journey to enlightenment. As Dan Rather used to say, "Courage."

On the matter of courage (or perhaps, faith in your countrymen) would you be up for a significant wager on which party will take the WH in 2008?

I'll make the offer open to woiyo as well.

$100...$500...? You courageous fellows can call it.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

okie wrote:
blatham wrote:
Personally, I find the intellectual acuity of both drudge and woiyo to be most compelling. Clearly that's it for Hillary now.

Blatham, I know its tough to face the truth, so you will have tough sledding from here on, as you staunchly want to believe in Hillary. Good luck in your journey to enlightenment. As Dan Rather used to say, "Courage."

On the matter of courage (or perhaps, faith in your countrymen) would you be up for a significant wager on which party will take the WH in 2008?

I'll make the offer open to woiyo as well.

$100...$500...? You courageous fellows can call it.

Money/wagering does not equate to courage. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

theGarance was in Des Moines for the Democrats' Jefferson Jackson Dinner on Saturday and live-blogged the event.

The short of it: Hillary was "stilted", "shrill", "devoid of warmth", and "curiously dispassionate", while Obama "finally gave the speech his supporters have been waiting for him to give all year" and mere mentions of his name were "met with screams, whoops, ululations, whistles, shouts, and cries of wordless enthusiasm".

What I picked up on in her sampling of the mood were these somewhat contradictory impressions of the crowd in subsequent posts:

Quote:

[Hillary's] supporters had the miscellaneous appearance of the genuinely downtrodden or socially forgotten, unlike the hale and hearty college students and lively, well-to-do middle-class families in Obama's sections.

It's clear whom Garance identifies with (in "the heart of Obamaland [..] the welcome was considerably warmer"), but the descriptions make me sympathise with Hillary. Odd how that kind of thing works on such a gut-instinct level.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Money/wagering does not equate to courage.

Well, the saying "put your money where your mouth is" does come to mind..

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

okie wrote:
blatham wrote:
Personally, I find the intellectual acuity of both drudge and woiyo to be most compelling. Clearly that's it for Hillary now.

Blatham, I know its tough to face the truth, so you will have tough sledding from here on, as you staunchly want to believe in Hillary. Good luck in your journey to enlightenment. As Dan Rather used to say, "Courage."

On the matter of courage (or perhaps, faith in your countrymen) would you be up for a significant wager on which party will take the WH in 2008?

I'll make the offer open to woiyo as well.

$100...$500...? You courageous fellows can call it.

Did you think I was talking about who wins the election? Get a clue.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know