Latest debate: Did they draw any blood?

CharlasProgressive & Liberal!

Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.

Latest debate: Did they draw any blood?

Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.

1wyrdchao
Editado: Nov 3, 2007, 1:57 am

So much for making debates fair, but... that's media-driven politics for you.

I'm hardly unbiased; I've come out heavily for Hillary here and elsewhere, for purely practical reasons. Ideology just won't cut it until the rot is cut out; the big question is, is Mrs. C the one to do it?
------
As for the debate:

Hillary got jumped, big time. How did she fare?

Is Obama turning into a spin-mongering weasel?

Why doesn't anyone want to give money to Dodd?

2jseger9000
Nov 3, 2007, 11:25 am

Man, I like Kucinich's ideas more than any of the other candidates, but as you said Ideology just won't cut it until the rot is cut out.

Quite honestly they can gang up on Hillary Clinton all they want. The real speculation is on who will be her running mate, because unless she's caught snorting coke with Hitler, she's already knocked everyone else out. Look at how often you hear about Hillary versus how often you hear about Obama any more.

3maggie1944
Nov 3, 2007, 11:36 am

I agree the boys were ganging up on her but I also recognize the Clinton history is some baggage, whether it is relevant or not. I am a tad sorry her campaign started the boys are ganging up on the girl angle; any front runner would probably be victim to a gang up at this point. I believe that she does have the gender thing as a problem but I think she'd be best served if she doesn't complain about it, and sticks to her competencies.

4Lunar
Nov 3, 2007, 1:12 pm

I agree about the baggage. I think it's because of that baggage that people who would otherwise stay home on election day due to their disenchantment of the Republicat party will be motivated to come out if it means voting against her. It would become another close election. And a close polarising election means a more competitive election, a costlier election requiring more fund-raising with more strings attatched and more profit for the media selling ad time to the candidates that that same media likes to proclaim as front-runners. Democracy is a racket.

5jseger9000
Editado: Nov 3, 2007, 3:06 pm

Lunar,

On the other hand, who do the republicans have that could compete against her? Even their own people don't like their candidates.

I'm not saying that there won't be people motivated just to vote against her, but honestly, if it's a choice between her and someone as scary as Romney I think a lot of people would either use the 'they both suck so I'm not voting' argument or they will be motivated to vote against him.

6Jesse_wiedinmyer
Nov 5, 2007, 1:04 am

So here's a question for y'all. I got shot down for bringing this up else-fora, but... Am I the only one that feels that if a Democrat wins, they're not going to do it because people are excited about the Dem, but rather only because the Dem is not Bush or a member of his party?

7jseger9000
Nov 5, 2007, 1:17 pm

Jesse,

If the Democrat wins by only a slight margin, then you will be wrong. However, I feel that that is exactly why a Democrat will win in the next election by a large margin.

The trick is for Hillary or whoever to do a damn good job and get some amazing stuff accomplished during the 'honeymoon' period. Hopefully put us on track for socialized healthcare and do something about Iraq. (Immediate withdrawal would be a disaster.)

It would also be nice if (once the Dems have control) somebody would call a spade a spade and investigate all the dirty deals that were done over the last eight years instead of just making nice the way they are now.

Then maybe the Dems can reclaim their reputation and help pull this country back to a true middle.

8maggie1944
Nov 5, 2007, 1:36 pm

I am pretty well convinced that the job of President of the United States of America is completely undoable. Of course, if a D wins it is because the Rs have been so bad; but the D will go on to make his/her own completely unbelieveable mistakes, too. I am very much concerned this republic is no longer a country with a government that can work for the people.

9jseger9000
Nov 5, 2007, 1:55 pm

I don't know about that. Clinton, Bush 1 and even (grudgingly) Reagan did a much, much, much better job than the current shmoe. While nobody agreed with all of their policies, they were at least able to accomplish things without completely dragging the country down in the muck.

Don't let the terrible job the last prez has done completely dishearten you. Don't forget, the people that made up Bush 2's closest advisors were called 'the crazies' by Bush 1. They'll all be gone soon enough (unless Romney wins).

10wyrdchao
Editado: Nov 7, 2007, 7:01 am

2> Yes, I like Kucinich too, although the UFO thing worried me a little; I think I'VE seen one too, but I wouldn't imagine mentioning it if I was running for office..

3> Clinton baggage: It's funny how much worse Republican baggage has to be before it is really gets to smell bad. Losing money on a land development deal (Whitewater)? Failing on healthcare (R's ran Congress then, hmmm..)? BJ's in the Oval Office (but Hillary was as much a victim as anyone, there)? Big Furry Deal...

Dodging the Draft? Clinton gave up the second year of his Rhodes scholarship to come back to the states IN CASE he was drafted.. he took a deferment, finally. He couldn't return, and ended up at Yale (where he met the Hill, as it turned out).

So..Bill gave up a valuable year at Oxford, while the Forehead...consistently ducked the duty he'd signed up for to get out of the draft.

Have we become so cynical that we EXPECT R's to be dishonest, and therefore no longer hold it against them?

11wyrdchao
Nov 7, 2007, 7:15 am

>6 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Jesse, if any Dem wins by the margin Bush did in both elections, we can only hope they would do better than he: 51% is NOT a mandate to do whatever you want.

Administrations up to the time of Nixon were much better at balancing their administrations by recruiting the best people from both sides of the aisle; this was EXACTLY to help them in Congress and with critics.

LBJ for instance, worked very closely with Nixon to move legislation and help his administration sell various foreign policy endeavors.

Robert McNamara was an R recruited by JFK from General Motors; a lot of the 'whiz kids' had the same background.

Henry Stimson was a rabid anti-New Deal R, but that didn't keep FDR from employing him as Secretary of War.

Examples abound. The Carter and Clinton admins had a hard time partly because they WERE outsiders; they didn't know or trust enough people to have effective cabinets right away, and had a hard time conducting foreign policy and working with Congress as a result.

12wyrdchao
Nov 7, 2007, 7:21 am

Sorry for all the posts, been gone a few days...

What about the other candidates? Since we agree that H is probably it, who would be her best pick for VP?

I'd lean toward Obama, not so much for his 2nd run status as because he is likely to be PERCEIVED as more savvy on foreign policy; don't think Hillary really needs help here, but he is certainly smart and independent enough to offer a lot of help to a Clinton Admin.

On the other hand, Dodd would be good match, with a lot of practical experience and, I think, a more pragmatic approach.

13maggie1944
Nov 7, 2007, 5:02 pm

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be epic. I also think that spending 4 years as a VP would be very hard on Obama; if I were giving him advice I'd say stay where you are, and achieve lots.

I don't know who I think would be best as a running mate for Clinton.

14jseger9000
Editado: Nov 9, 2007, 10:19 pm

Wyrdchao,

Kucinich answered a question Tim Russert asked him. It isn't like he was answering some question on trade relations with Egypt and said 'Oh, by the way... I saw a UFO.' Honestly it felt more like Tim Russert was trying to discredit Kucinich than anything. Jimmy Carter saw a UFO and was still elected president and won a Nobel prize.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you said in post 10.

15varielle
Dic 27, 2007, 12:34 pm

Back to Hillary's running mate, if she went with Al Gore she'd have it in the bag.

16geneg
Dic 27, 2007, 1:30 pm

varielle, a friend of mine who knows the Clintons well, told me the other day that a small bird flew from a tree branch and landed on Hillary's shoulder. This is what took place:

"Why little birdie, what can I do for you?" The bird answered: "Why are you so down in the dumps?" " Because it looks like my campaign is out of control and We don't know what to do." " Well, cheer up! Things could be worse." Well, she cheered up and sure enough things are getting worse.

Don't count your Chickens before they hatch!

17modalursine
Dic 27, 2007, 2:34 pm

There's a scene in Lord of the Rings, where the Hobbits, Merry and Pippin, are talking to Tree-Beard the Ent. They want to know who's side he will be on in the comming War of the Ring. He says "I'm on nobody's side because nobody is on my side"

Now, dont get me wrong, I'm a yellow dog democrat (I'll vote for any democrat, even if he's a yellow dog); but its with the strong feeling of voting for the lesser of two weevles, not voting for the candidate that will actually do anything good, just the one I can reasonably hope will do less harm.

Since this is the "Liberal & Progressive" group I dont spoze I need to be more specific about why I think the Dems are the lesser weevle.

18varielle
Dic 27, 2007, 6:50 pm

No chicken counting here, just an observation. I lean towards Biden or Ron Paul *gasp* Neither of whom really have a prayer.

19weener
Dic 27, 2007, 7:12 pm

20BGP
Editado: Dic 27, 2007, 8:21 pm

He would also like us to return the US to the Gold Standard, does not believe that the US has any obligation to intervene in any form (be it through financial aid, matériel, etc) in the case of Darfur (and, presumably, any other future third world genocides), and has openly stated that, if it were possible, he would like to abolish Medicaid, Medicare, the IRS, privatize Social Security, and on, and on, and on...

Given the fact that Biden and Paul disagree on virtually every political issue, I must ask, varielle, what has attracted you to (or, at the very least, failed to repel you from) two essentially antithetical political platforms?

21geneg
Dic 27, 2007, 8:29 pm

I'm telling you, the best we could get at this point would be a veto-proof democratic Congress and Ron Paul as President. Ron Paul would restore us to Federal system with three bases of power, like we used to have. The Democrats (if they are real Democrats, not Libertarians) should be able to control his most egregious economic plans.

22BGP
Editado: Dic 27, 2007, 8:34 pm

Are you really comfortable with his unabashed isolationism?

We have too many enemies to simply turn our back on the world, and he is unwilling to even commit to future engagement based on financial investment, aggressive (and yet reconciliatory) diplomacy, the pursuit of known terrorist elements, etc...

23varielle
Editado: Dic 30, 2007, 8:50 am

If we stop meddling in other people's affairs I suspect there wouldn't be so many who want to do us harm, so I guess I'm mildly isolationist (i.e. for engagement, but not bullying or selling out). Most of the problems we have right now are just the chickens coming home to roost.

The anti-choice thing is a big sticking point for me in regards to Paul. It doesn't seem to fit with his other positions on personal responsibility and non-interference. Even if he made it to the top of the Republican heap I'd still vote Democratic. On a personal level I'm not a Hillary fan, but I think she would be completely competent and do a decent job. My state's primaries are so late in the game that whatever we vote on here won't matter.

Speaking of the primary system-- Wouldn't it be more fair to at least rotate the early primaries every four years instead of letting little, non-representative states like New Hampshire and Iowa wag the dog?

24dixiereader
Editado: Ene 1, 2008, 9:09 am

You still don't get it. You're readers so read this.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18976.htm

I also recommend the sci fi book Travelers by John Twelve Hawks.

25dixiereader
Ene 1, 2008, 9:19 am

Localization not globalization.

http://ifg.org/

26jseger9000
Ene 5, 2008, 11:06 pm

Dixiereader,

An interesting article, but it got a little too David Icke-y for me. While Richard Moore has some good points about the Federal Reserve Bank, he didn't seem to draw any line between facts and speculation. Once he got to the point of saying what this top secret Cabal would have done without providing any evidence he lost me. Once you really start to listen to these people you learn that the world is run by the lizard men!

Únete para publicar