2008 Election Talk

[housemouse]

maggiethecat said:

I see that the Kerry bashing has stopped around here now that he's endorsed Obama.

This endorsement surprised me. I really thought he would pick Edwards.

maggiethecat said:

Seriously, some of the comments in this thread about Kerry's candidacy really point up -- at least to me -- the major flaw at the heart of the way in which we elect our presidents, or have since JFK. If you don't come across on television you're doomed. Period. So a man whose record was perfect in terms of a Democratic candidate, but who wasn't a facile off-the-cuff speaker, and whose reaction to an insane smear campaign was to rise above it and not get down in the mud himself is perceived as dull and therefor unelectable.

I offer Dubya as exhibit A here. The man has all the charisma of a sack of dirt. His beady little eyes are frightening, and he has bad hair.

maggiethecat said:

Oh, my God! It's High School! That's it -- it's High School and who's gonna be Class presedent! Whose clothes are the coolest, who has the catchiest slogan, and whose Mom made the best bribe-brownies!!!

That's why I lost for treasurer my freshman year. Now I know.

maggiethecat said:

Okay, I was being silly (who, me?) but the point is that the run for the presidency is essentially a popularity contest in which, at some point, merit goes out the window. And that's a shame.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Bush lost the "popular" vote but he is our president.

admin said:

I was actually very supportive of Kerry’s candidacy and I don’t think I was really bashing him here when I said he was robotic. I was talking more about how unnatural he appeared than about his merits. He appeared to be over handled and his already stiff demeanor was not improved by being careful to the point of seeming to never give a straight answer or to even stand for anything. He was a good man and a decent candidate and I was happy when he got the nomination, despite my fondness for Dean and Clark. I fluctuated between the three from the start so Kerry’s surprise win was great. But…he did run an idiotic campaign and threw away his chance.

I agree with this 100%. We NEEDED Kerry to win back in 04 and he blew it big time. After being swiftboated he should have come out swinging, but that did not happen. Although I am happy he endorsed Obama, I'm not sure how much weight the endorsement will carry because I know I am not the only one who hasn't forgiven him for the '04 debacle.

admin said:

I like all three of them, particularly Biden. It’s too bad they didn’t get more of a chance. I’m not a huge fan of Dodd, but Richardson has a lot of good ideas and Biden is admirable in many ways. I love that he still lives in his home state and commutes from Delaware to DC. He stays in touch with his constituents and he serves them well. I think these three knew they were long shots from the start but they got into the race to get their ideas out there to change the tone of the campaign and to possibly get positions in the cabinet of whomever is eventually elected. They’ll do just fine.

Winning is all about who has the best political machine. It is only that simple. Bush couldn't lose with The Evil Karl Rove pulling the strings. What our nominee really needs is James Carville and George Stephanopoulos.

Of course I knew Bidden and Richardson wouldn't be in the race for long, but I was sorry to see them both go. I'm not worried about them doing fine, but I would like to see some people with foreign policy experience in the White House.

[shmeep]

George Stephanopaulos interviewed John Kerry this week and I found it very interesting. My respect for John Kerry has increased. He really is a very good person and has a great moral compass. While supporting Obama and giving his reasons for believing Obama is the one who is really capable of effecting change in this country, he absolutely refused to be drawn into any negative talk about the other candidates. While he's (reportedly) not overly fond of the Clintons, he spoke of them with respect and when Stephanopaulos tried several times to get Kerry to comment on a very nasty smear against John Edwards, Kerry (who reportedly had a very strained relationship with Edwards) wouldn't even let Stephanopaulos say what the smear was and told him none of that was relevant to this current election and that even bringing it up was a waste of time. When Stephanopaulos mentioned swiftboating and the fear that Obama could be susceptible to such tactics, Kerry said that that would never happen to another Democrat again and that they had all learned their lesson from what happened to him. He went on to explain that, while he had tried to set the record straight with a press conference when the accusation was first made public, his strategy of moving on and assuming the people knew it had already been answered was a mistake.

Dang. As mad as I am at him for screwing up his candidacy, I really do respect the guy. He was obviously too good a guy to be any match for Karl Rove and that's a shame.

Know what I'm going to do? I'm going to re-read Primary Colors by Joe Klein (aka: Anonymous). Did any of you read that? It's a book written by a journalist who had covered the Clinton campaign for New York Magazine in 1992 and it was loosely based on the Clintons and really shows, from an insider's perspective, how Bill clawed his way to that nomination. VERY interesting, especially in light of what's going on now. Yep. I'm going down to my freezing basement and digging it up so I can see if I still find it relevant today. I particularly remember how dirty the main character played in order to knock down and discredit his competition and if this is based on the Clintons (which it is), then I am on the lookout for such tactics again. I know I've seen some already, but it'll only get worse.

[matilda]

LOVE PRIMARY COLORS!!! Do it shmeep!!!

And my love for it is not about dissing the Clintons, it's about political systems that can and frequently do see people do 'whatever it takes'. Very scary and interesting human behaviour.

M

[maggiethecat]

I must have missed a few posts in this thread. Shmeep, I'm glad to see you're finally coming to around to an understanding of John Kerry's strengths; it's just a damned shame that, when it comes to elections, behaving like a gentleman is perceived as weakness. I've been on Kerry's team forever (anyone who made Nixon's enemies list was always my kind of human), and remember him when he first spoke out for VVAW and testified before Congress in his fatigues. Even in his twenties he had a kind of reflective quality, a quiet thoughtfulness -- which, unfortunately, goes whizzing over most people's heads and comes across as wishy-washy on TV.

Did anyone watch the Dem's debate last night (I say this warily). I only saw snippets but clearly the gloves are off. More than that I will not say, except that I will be sorry to see Edwards leave the race -- his civility and courtly manner is such a relief.

[housemouse]

Maggie I did not watch the debate and I am sorry I missed it. I also missed the state of the union last night, but that is probably for the best because I probably would have been spitting nails the whole time.

Shmeep, I saw along interview with Barack Obama last night. I am pretty sure at this point he will be the nominee, and I am officially behind him. I think he will be a good president. We really, really need a good president.

[shmeep]

maggiethecat said:

Did anyone watch the Dem's debate last night (I say this warily). I only saw snippets but clearly the gloves are off. More than that I will not say, except that I will be sorry to see Edwards leave the race -- his civility and courtly manner is such a relief.

Sorry I didn’t respond to this ages ago. I meant to. Honest.

I ended up feeling stressed out after watching that debate. Yes, Obama gave as good as he got (and he has to if he wants to have a chance here), but Hillary annoyed me far more. I generally like her well enough and I won’t be TOO disappointed if she’s our pick, but I saw the calculation and the barbs against Obama in nearly every word she said during that debate. Obama didn’t come off looking much better, but I really don’t think that’s the way he wants to play this.

About Edwards…I think it’s very easy for him to come off looking like the respectable Southern gentleman when no one perceives him as being enough of a threat to bother attacking him. As we know, from his own words and from his past work history, he’s an attack dog and would probably have loved to have been attacked by Hillary so he could fight back. He can fight and he could have made her look worse than Obama made her look, if he were given that chance. Still, staying out of it and being the voice of reason suited him and many of Hillary’s votes did go to him at the last minute, do doubt because of this debate. Still…I would love to see what he could do if he were perceived to be the threat.

housemouse said:

Shmeep, I saw along interview with Barack Obama last night. I am pretty sure at this point he will be the nominee, and I am officially behind him. I think he will be a good president. We really, really need a good president.

I don't know if it's the one you saw, but I saw the one he gave George Stephanopaulus over the weekend and was very impressed. The funny thing about Obama, though, is that he comes off as fairly ordinary and even bumbling in debates, he seems intelligent in interviews and he's mesmerizing when he makes speeches. That interview—and this entire election so far—must be surreal to George Stephanopaulus, who had a large part in getting Bill elected the first time and who has unique behind-the-scenes perspectives of all the Clinton tactics. He may have played a part in these tactics in the past so he must really be biting his tongue at times during round-table discussions and interviews when he knows more than he’s allowed to say, since he’s the moderator and must appear to be neutral. True, he wrote a book about his time with the Clintons and much of it was not favorable, but sometimes I can hear the frustration in his voice when he asks questions and directs the discussion. I heard it a few times in his Obama interview. He asked several pointed questions that seemed to be coming from a place of personal experience. Sometimes he seems to be defending Hillary and sometimes not, but I always wonder what he’s thinking throughout this entire process.

So, how about those Kennedys? I guess Bill drove Ted (heh…Bill and Ted…) around the bend at last, didn’t he? Ted’s speech yesterday answered, point for point, every single attack the Clintons have made against Obama, but without ever using their names. It was the exact tactic Hillary has been using against Obama from the beginning so I found it very interesting. It must have been a huge blow to the Clintons, who have always felt very close to the Kennedy’s and who were hoping for Ted’s endorsement. I kind of felt sorry for Hillary yesterday. Her tactic of using Bill as her defender and then laughing and calling him an enthusiastic spouse when asked about it has backfired this time.

[maggiethecat]

Well . . . I was going to tell you about the evening I spent on Wednesday with an old friend who's known Hillary for fifteen years, and who campaigned for her in Iowa and New Hampshire, and share some really nice and interesting snippets -- but I can see from the tenor of this thread that nobody's going to be interested in anything positive I could say about her. Suffice it to say that politicians all engage in mudslinging on the campaign trail -- and I mean ALL of them, even the sainted Mr. Obama. ;D

It's also a lo-o-o-ong way to the end of the campaign.

[Deleted]

maggiethecat said:

Well . . . I was going to tell you about the evening I spent on Wednesday with an old friend who's known Hillary for fifteen years, and who campaigned for her in Iowa and New Hampshire, and share some really nice and interesting snippets -- but I can see from the tenor of this thread that nobody's going to be interested in anything positive I could say about her. Suffice it to say that politicians all engage in mudslinging on the campaign trail -- and I mean ALL of them, even the sainted Mr. Obama. ;D

It's also a lo-o-o-ong way to the end of the campaign.

Ummm......... I am interested.

[mlm828]

I would be interested, too. I have to vote next Tuesday, and I'm still undecided. I'm even considering casting a symbolic vote for Richardson, who's still on the ballot in California even though he's dropped out of the race.

[inuvik]

mlm828 said:

I would be interested, too. I have to vote next Tuesday, and I'm still undecided. I'm even considering casting a symbolic vote for Richardson, who's still on the ballot in California even though he's dropped out of the race.

No no, don't waste your vote! Never waste a vote!

[shmeep]

maggiethecat said:

Well . . . I was going to tell you about the evening I spent on Wednesday with an old friend who's known Hillary for fifteen years, and who campaigned for her in Iowa and New Hampshire, and share some really nice and interesting snippets -- but I can see from the tenor of this thread that nobody's going to be interested in anything positive I could say about her. Suffice it to say that politicians all engage in mudslinging on the campaign trail -- and I mean ALL of them, even the sainted Mr. Obama. ;D

I find this completely unwarranted! Really, Mags. you should know better. If everyone here were badmouthing my guy and I had some inside information, do you really think I'd sit on it? This is a conversation! I've said all along that I will support whatever Democrat gets the nomination because I have respect for all of them. It's just fun to debate on all the minutia right now because that's how we have to wrestle with our own decision-making processes. I like Hillary (most of the time). She's smart and well-informed and I know her experience in the White House is valuable. I'm a little mad at the Clintons' this week and I don't always like their tactics (and I think most of that comes straight from Bill--who I believe was the best president in my memory), but this in no way means I am adverse to hearing anything positive about Hillary. Quite the contrary. I've heard she's really lovely to work with and has a much softer and nicer personality than how she comes across in the media and I don't doubt that one bit. A friend of mine heard her speak when she was first lady and he thought she was electrifying. She was so passionate and so intelligent that he was sure it would be all over the news. What ended up being reported was what she was wearing. She has come a long way and I'm proud of her for that. I will also give her my full support if she is the nominee. I just happen to like Obama better and think he'll make a better president.

Please feel free to share whatever you like here. I can't imagine anyone getting angry over hearing something positive for a change.

[maggiethecat]

Well, you can't blame me for being a little sensitive after some of the references to her "tactics," can you?

And I'm really pissed at those wacky Kennedys! Teddy never does anything without a quid pro quo -- I just wonder what it was?

Oh, all right. Let the chips fall where they may. I keep thinking of the New Hampshire woman I saw on the news a few weeks back who said that, while she was a registered Republican, she was extremely disturbed by the kind of smarmy tactics being used against Hillary (like the “Hillary is a dyke” signs, which we certainly didn’t see on the news.). “I don’t like her,” this woman said, “but all I can say is, you go, girl.” The dirty tactics weren’t coming directly from HC’s competitors, but let’s just say that the other candidates weren’t exactly doing anything to stop their followers from being tacky. And that includes both parties.

I’m going to call my source MF (my friend) because, well, even though this is a fairly private corner of the Net, she does have a national reputation as a comedienne, and some of you might recognize her name. I’ve known MF for some 25 years, and she’s known Hillary for about 20; she first got to know her when Bill was governor of Arkansas. They met at the Renaissance Weekend held in South Carolina every New Year’s weekend. (Has to do with networking, not dressing up in costume or jousting.) What we don’t see in the press – because they don’t deem it germane, or because they have other more important things to cover, I guess – is that Hillary is, by all accounts and MF’s experience, a truly warm and funny women with a wicked sense of humor (she’s got a ballsy throw-back-her head laugh we never see on camera) and a sense of mission that goes back to high school. She is extremely supportive of her women friends, and she takes time for them even when you'd think she had more important things to do: MF recalls getting numerous handwritten notes from her when she was in the White House, when e-mail would have been easier and quicker. She has an encyclopedic memory, and can meet someone once, run into them again in a few years, and remember what they talked about and what the other person was concerned about – a useful trait in public life, to be sure.

Off point? Probably, but a taste of the kind of woman she is. Not an “automaton.” If a man knew as much as she does about the issues he would be praised as "well-prepared," for crying out loud!

So MF had a lot of stories about how hard everybody worked in Iowa (and what a Godforsaken cold corner of the planet it is), and how hard everybody worked in New Hampshire. MF was there, by the way, when Hillary “cried.” Okay, she welled up – she didn’t shed tears – but maybe it was time for her to let everyone know, even accidentally, how human she was and how much she cared. And that’s the bottom line – she cares in a way that isn’t about rhetoric, and it is not about ego. Comes back to that sense of mission, and doing what she feels is right despite the cost to herself.

Here’s one anecdote, and forgive me for not remembering the exact circumstances of the event. Some sort of conference . . . or maybe one of the debates? Can’t remember, but what I do remember is MF recounting how Hillary, coming in, saw the Mayor of San Francisco, whom she recognized and with whom she had a specific conversation about an issue that was important to this man – she did the same thing a few minutes later with the Mayor of another city. The point of the story is that when Obama swept into the event a few minutes later, he walked right past the two men because it was clear to everyone there that he didn’t even know who they were, let alone what their pet issues were. From those who have been watching him in action at events all year, there comes a disturbing sense that he doesn’t listen to what others have to say, that he’s comfortable with a skin-deep knowledge of the issues and memorable phrases, and that he prefers to save his energies for his moments in front of the crowd when he can be really brilliant. He wants the job, but those in the know aren’t getting the sense that he knows what he’d do once he’s in office . . . and haven’t we all seen that before, to disastrous effect?

I could say more but it would be off the record, and I have to respect that which was told to me in confidence. Suffice it to say that those in the know are wary of Obama, and for more reasons than the obvious. They’re worried. Not for themselves – for the country.

Oh, and Hillary told MF over a year ago (at a private luncheon), when she was on the fence about whether to run, that she really didn’t need to run. Her life was good, she said; she was in a good place, and doing effective work in the Senate. She spoke of how proud she was that she could work with anyone, on either side of the aisle, including co-sponsoring a bill with the Senator who had brought the articles of impeachment against her husband. But if she did run, it would not be because of anything she wanted personally, but because she truly knew that she could do the job and do it well. And make a difference in ordinary lives.

Okay, one bit of insider info because it thrills me. Wesley Clark for VP, anyone? They've been talking . . . .

[shmeep]

Mags, thank you so much for sharing all of that. Karma. How exciting to have an inside source! After reading that, I am even more convinced that I will be happy with whomever the Dems nominate—as long as he/she can win. I suspect that they will win, although Dems have a habit of screwing up elections even when they’ve been handed to them.

I don’t know if I buy your friend’s version of Obama. I know the man isn’t perfect, nor does he have nearly as many political connections all over the country as Hillary, and I also know his campaign isn’t snowy white either. I never said it was. What does impress me, though, is that Obama publicly admitted he was equally to blame for the blow-out at the debate while Hillary has never publicly admitted wrong (that I’ve ever heard). I’m not a fan of politicians who refuse to admit past mistakes (we’ve had to put up with that for the last seven years), but I suspect that tactic is carried over from Bill. And yes, I did say tactic. I don’t blame Hillary entirely for the tactics used, but she does use them and many of them are familiar because we saw them in 1992 when Bill was running. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing. My husband loves when Hillary seems to be playing dirty because he wants a president who is willing to fight and scratch her way to the nomination. He cheers whenever her methods work and gets very impressed when Obama gets the upper hand. But back to my point, I’m sure any person as passionately supportive of Hillary as your friend is would see Obama differently than others would. I’m not saying she’s mistaken, since I have no inside source, but that’s an impression I’ll take into consideration until I’ve seen proof of it in some way for myself. It might be like Obama’s perceived slight of Hillary last night at the State of the Union, when she went to shake hands with him and he turned away. He says it was not intentional and was just a matter of bad timing. Someone behind him asked him a question and he turned to respond just as Hillary approached and was unaware of what had happened until it was too late. Oops. But such a moment could give a certain impression while something else may be the truth.

I would love to see Wesley Clark as anyone’s running mate. Amazing choice, if it can happen. He would have been my pick for president if he were running this time.

[matilda]

Gee I'm loving this and your different views.

Now I'm not interfering or sticking my beak in, all I want to add is a bit of anecdotal evidence:

An acquaintance left Oz after the bitterly doomed campaign to change our fair land to a Republic - she like me (and quite frankly anyone with any sense) was involved with the Yes Campaign.

Anyway she was full time on the campaign and slightly on the depressed side afterwards so off she went off to NY and got a job with Hillary. I also hasten to add that it is a very junior job and she's only an acquaintance but I can say that the mail that has been reaching here for some years now is that your Hillary is indeed what we would term a 'top chick'.

That's all except shmeep you have very good-looking brothers darls, which I hazard a guess you have of course been informed as to before.

Cheers

M

[mlm828]

A few random thoughts. . .

I was sorry to see Edwards drop out of the race, and a little surprised he did so this soon. But I suppose it was inevitable, sooner or later. I only hope the two remaining Democratic candidates will take up his issues, as he said they promised to do.

I read with interest the recent posts about Hillary Clinton. What I don't understand is why the public perception of her is so very different from that of the people who actually interact with her and know her. I know any politician's public persona is going to be different from his or her private persona, but the gap seems larger than usual in her case. Are the mainstream media buying the right wing line in how they portray her? Is there some subtle (or not so subtle) gender bias at work here? Or is it somehow deemed more "newsworthy" to portray her in a false light? I am very concerned that as long as she continues to be seen as a polarizing figure (even if she isn't), her electability is in question. If she is the nominee, I just know the Republicans and the right-wing groups will go after her with no holds barred and will surely capitalize on the negative perception that some members of the public have of her. I think she would be a very good President, and I would love to see a woman become President in my lifetime -- if only she can be elected!

It seems to me that there is a widespread feeling in the country that things simply can't go on as they have in the recent past. So far, I think Obama has done the best job of tapping into that feeling. Whether he can ride that wave all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue remains to be seen.

Now that the races are narrowing down, I am also wondering who will be the Republican nominee and which one I (as a Democrat) would prefer -- that is, which one will be easier for the Democractic nominee to defeat. I have to confess, Romney scares me a bit. I think he could turn out to be almost as bad as Bush. If his changes of position for political expediency are any indication, he is without scruples, like Bush and his gang, and would likely run a similarly ruthless campaign. And his background as a wealthy businessman means a Romney administration would be as disastrous for ordinary Americans as Bush's has been.