2008 Election Talk

[housemouse]

So this...

housemouse said:

McCain's time has passed. Sorry John, but that is the truth.

and this..

housemouse said:

Honestly, I am willing to go on record right now as predicting that John Edwards will be the next president of the United States.

...are two reasons I am no longer CNN's political analyst.

I am looking forward to the debate tonight, I'll bet you anything Hillary and Barack have their claws out. I think the race is starting to get very interesting now.

[shmeep]

Hee! What a delight you are, as always, Mouse! I remember the Edwards prediction, but I had forgotten the McCain one. Hilarious.

I was sorry to see Edwards drop out, but he did it with class and now I'm dying to know where this leaves things. It's impossible to predict where his supporters will turn now and I don't see him making any endorsements anytime soon. You're right. This is VERY interesting.

I hope the debate will be more informative and less divisive than the last one. I'm sure they will take some pointed jabs at each other, but I really want to know where they stand and not who has the most dirt on the other. Then again...they really are so similar in their views overall that they almost have to resort to personal attacks in order to stand out in some way. And both are historic candidates. Yikes. They're both doomed! But one will win and I'll be thrilled when he/she does.

I gave mlm karma yesterday for bringing back a point I had nearly forgotten in all this Hillary/Barrack talk. The fact that, whether deserved or not, Hillary is the only one on earth who could unite the Republican party because their hatred of her is so vast. If she's our nominee, we'll see far less confusion and far more purpose on the part of the Republicans and that's something we don't need. I'm enjoying their state of confusion and have no wish to see them unite under the anti-Hillary cause. I'm not calling their hatred rational. It clearly isn't. But...it's there and it will unite them. A lot of Republicans refuse to vote for John McCain because they think he's a Liberal ( ) but they'll hold their noses and support him if they think she's the alternative.

[maggiethecat]

Oh, Mouse, I wish you were CNN's political analyst!


Oh, yeah, the Republicans hate both the Clintons and have since day one -- and Bill still won a second term. If she galvanizes the party we'll just have to depend on the fact that there are more registered Dems than Reps.

On the other side of the coin is what has been referred to as "the Tom Bradley factor," wherein African-American candidates who win do so with substantially smaller margins than the polls indicated. Traditionally, far fewer who are polled as saying they'd vote for an African-American actually do. A lot of people will say they'll vote for a black man because it sounds good, but when it comes to actually pulling that lever it's another story.

Wheee, I get to be the first to weigh in after last night's debate. Although it's pretty much a foregone conclusion around here what the opinion will be from two of the admins -- Shmeep will think Barack rocked and of course I'll think Hillary won the day. [Joke ;D]

Well . . . she did. I was actually surprised at how relaxed and in command she was. That she'd be the better informed was almost a foregone conclusion, since it's one thing she's known for and she never disappoints. That said, I have to say I was a little stunned at how Obama kept getting tied up in his own answers. At times he was literally going around in circles, repeated phrases from his speeches about people he'd met at town meetings, etc. Hey! you know I'm no fan of his but at times I almost felt sorry for the guy. A lot of the time he looked tense and sour and like he'd rather be anywhere else. But Hillary was just amazing. I mean, I've liked her for years, and she just stunned me last night! Clearly, she was in her element.

QUESTION OF THE NIGHT!
Does anyone know what they said to each other at the end of the debate when they strood up and embraced and were laughing? I'm a lousy lip-reader so I didn't catch any of it, but I'll be willing to bet the conversation has already been "decoded." And aren't we all dying to know?

[shmeep]

I didn’t get to watch it live. I caught much of it on C-SPAN radio last night and this morning and then I caught the end on CNN just a little while ago. I didn’t see or hear the beginning, but I thought both candidates sounded very good, for the most part.

Hillary was weak during her excuses about her Iraq vote. Really, that vote was a turning point for me. Before she did that, I loved her and wanted nothing more than for her to someday be president. The second she voted that way, I lost most of my respect for her because it seemed like a sell-out vote. However she tries to justify it now, I can’t forget the disappointment I felt in her for that. If even I knew it was a bad vote at the time, how could she not have known? It doesn’t seem possible. Her excuses somehow made it worse than if she had just admitted she had made a mistake (which she will NEVER do).

I think Obama is sometimes a little awkward in this kind of venue, but he holds his own and last night he allowed his humor to show several times (loved his comment about Romney not getting a very good return on his investment for this election). I thought many of his answers, particularly pertaining to Iraq and the entertainment industry, were incredibly strong. Maybe I missed the part where he utterly humiliated himself.

If you like Hillary, she won. If you like Obama, he won. I don’t generally think about who won, unless someone makes a terrible mistake. I just like to listen and learn.

[maggiethecat]

Hello? I never said he utterly humiliated himself! I said he got tangled up and went around in circles, which was my take on his explanation of his health care plan. I'm sorry you weren't able to watch it live -- as I said, I really was somewhat taken aback at how uncomfortable he seemed at times.

Um . . . I thought Hillary's Irag vote under discussion last night was about allowing the inspector's back in, which, given the circumstances and Saddam Hussein's past, was not entirely inappropriate. What I took away from her answer was that -- if you think back to when this happened -- no one thought Bush was going to abuse his power as egregiously as he did (and ruin Colin Powell's career in the process). God knows I'm not endorsing how events unfolded, but I think we also have to remember that Congress acted on the intelligence they were given, which we now know was faulty (to say the least. ). You have to look at these things in the context of the times -- which, of course, no one is about to do in the heat of the campaign. (Where would be the fun in that?) It's easy for Obama to damn her on this point since wasn't he in the Illinois State Senate at the time?

Whatever we all think, let's make sure we get out and vote on Tuesday!

[shmeep]

I took liberties with you saying you felt sorry for the guy.

Hillary spoke of more than one Iraq vote but the one I was referring to was the one where she voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. That was very specifically mentioned during the debate. I am putting it into the context of the time. When I hear her explain it now, I can see her trying to spin it, but I was following her very closely at the time and I was appalled that she voted that way and frankly have yet to forgive her for it. I wasn't even in any state legislature at the time. I believe I worked at a high school, but even I thought that was an outrageous vote. I was disappointed in a lot of people that day and she was one of them.

maggiethecat said:

...no one thought Bush was going to abuse his power as egregiously as he did...

[small voice] I did. [/small voice]

Actually a lot of people thought he would do just that, but they didn't happen to be in a position to stop him, which is a shame. I was against the war from day one. Maybe I should run for president.

[mlm828]

"Ms. Undecided" chiming in here. I think the debate was basically a draw. Both candidates generally handled themselves well, and both made good points. I especially liked Hillary's reference to "cleaning up after" the Shrub. I have thought for a long time that his pattern is to screw up anything he tries to do, leaving a mess behind him for others to clean up. Sorry, mags, but I was not impressed with Hillary's explanation of her vote on Iraq, and I agree with Obama that setting a "date certain" is probably the only way to get the Iraqi government to get off their collective backsides and take responsibility for securing their own country. It's human nature to procrastinate until you're up against a real deadline.

I don't put a lot of weight on the differences between their respective plans for health care, the economy, and so forth. Either one will take us in a better direction than the one in which we're now headed. And as someone on my legal list serve (where there is also a lively discussion going on) pointed out, no president's plan or program is going to make it through Congress unchanged.

So I'm back to square one: electability. Is there more covert racism or covert sexism? Can Hillary survive the onslaught of Republican hatred? Does Obama's ability to inspire offset his relative lack of experience? I don't know. One thing I do know is that the Democrats must not run the same kind of campaign which lost them eminently winnable elections in 2000 and 2004. The Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is, must come forward with a strong progressive populist platform, instead of playing to the center and trying to please everyone with wishy-washy positions vetted in focus groups. This message will not only energize the Democratic "base" (just as the Republicans have done with their "base"), it also has a good chance of reaching many people who don't bother to vote at all because they believe both parties represent the big money interests which finance their campaigns.

[maggiethecat]

Obama said last night he'd set a pull-out date of 16 months, Hillary said she'd aim for a year. They both made the claim for an end date.

Mlm, I think their electability is roughly the same, since Republicans pretty much consider both of them to be the anti-Christ.

As far as I can tell, every candidate since Washington has run on a platform of change. I've been through this too many times to believe anything anyone says when they're running for office. So I go by the candidates' records . . . and . . . um . . . oh Jeez, I can hear the screaming and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments right now . . . and . . . [really, really, really small voice] . . . does Obama even have a record? Seriously -- I'm asking. Someone tell me, please, since I've yet to see the evidence.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, it comes down to the fact that I'm just not up for another four or eight years of on-the-job training, no matter how personable and intelligent the trainee. Do I defend ever single thing Hillary Clinton has done in her life? God, no. I just think she's ready for the job in a way Obama won't be for another, say, ten years.

[mlm828]

This is a general rant, unrelated to the Obama-Clinton discussion in the preceding posts. I continue to be amazed at the Republicans’ ability to perpetuate the myth that they are stronger on national defense and security than the Democrats. A few “inconvenient” facts:

(1) Who is the only President who actually tried to take out Bin Laden? That would be Bill Clinton.

(2) Whose warnings did the Shrub blithely ignore before 9/11? That would be Richard Clark, a holdover from that same Clinton administration.

(3) Who is responsible for the creation of a whole new terrorist group? That would be the Shrub himself, who created “Al Qaeda in Iraq” when he recklessly invaded that country. “Al Qaeda in Iraq” didn’t even exist before that. And his actions have certainly made the terrorists’ recruiting efforts a whole lot easier.

(4) Who is undermining our military forces by stretching them to their limits? The Shrub, again. I live in an area with a large military community, and I’ve lost count of the number of stories on the local news about units being deployed to Iraq for the third or even the fourth time. And now this same idiot is engaging in saber-rattling toward Iran? Just who does he think is going to fight them?

Oh, yeah, we’re sooo much safer with the Republicans in power. NOT. The Democrats absolutely cannot allow the Republicans to keep perpetuating this myth, this time around.

[maggiethecat]

Amen and karma! You said it, and very eloquently too.

Yeah, it is interesting that Shrubbie and his gang of merry global meddlers conveniently manage to forget/overlook/bury under the rug the fact that Clinton had a much more effective record against terrorism than they did.

Off point, to be sure, but because we need a laugh, did anyone catch David Letterman's Top 10 List last night? It was the "top ten things overheard at Dick Cheney's birthday party." (He turned 67 day before yesterday -- more proof that only the good die young). My three favorites, in no particular order:

"Medic!"
"Clear!"
"Duck!"

Back to your post, mlm828 -- it always amuses me when the Republicans co-opt the posture of "strong on defense," the implication being that the Democrats are a bunch of spineless conchies. If you look at the Twentieth Century, the strongest and most effective wartime Commanders in Chief were Democrats.

[shmeep]

He's only 67? I thought he was years older than that. He's been an old man for ages.

Here's my point of comparison (and I apologize for sticking in more family pictures, but I really can't resist):



My dad is 75 years old. I never really thought about it, but I guess my gut has told me Cheney should be at least fifteen years older than him (although that would make him 90, so maybe not). (By the way, my mom is almost 69 and her cousin, Leiba, is 94.)

So this man is really 8 years younger than my dad?



Shocking. Sorry to get off track. I guess I never really thought about Cheney's age before so seeing what it really is was a bit of a shock. Only the good die young? Um...he's had four heart attacks. I think he's in pretty poor health for his age when you consider how much longer people are living than they used to.

ANYWAY...back to our regularly-scheduled rantings and ravings. Mlm, thank you for giving us a great look at who really needs to not be in power.

[housemouse]

admin said:

maggiethecat said:

...no one thought Bush was going to abuse his power as egregiously as he did...

[small voice] I did. [/small voice]

Actually a lot of people thought he would do just that, but they didn't happen to be in a position to stop him, which is a shame. I was against the war from day one. Maybe I should run for president.

I vividly remember sitting in one of my mommy and me classes talking to another mom about how stupid it would be for the shrub to invade. That was a class of about 20 moms and the two of us had to speak in hushed tones because all the others seemed to think it was a fabulous idea to go after Saddam. I think there were a lot of people who bought was the shrub was selling, but I also think there were some who questioned him from day one.

mlm828 said:

So I'm back to square one: electability. Is there more covert racism or covert sexism? Can Hillary survive the onslaught of Republican hatred? Does Obama's ability to inspire offset his relative lack of experience? I don't know. One thing I do know is that the Democrats must not run the same kind of campaign which lost them eminently winnable elections in 2000 and 2004. The Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is, must come forward with a strong progressive populist platform, instead of playing to the center and trying to please everyone with wishy-washy positions vetted in focus groups. This message will not only energize the Democratic "base" (just as the Republicans have done with their "base"), it also has a good chance of reaching many people who don't bother to vote at all because they believe both parties represent the big money interests which finance their campaigns.

I am 100% with you here. Honestly this is what it comes down to for me. Period. I think if McCain gets the nomination we are in for a tough fight. I think there are many liberals who don't want to relive the Clinton years by electing Hillary, or who, like Mags, feel as though Obama is too inexperienced. These folks will cross the aisle for someone as seemingly centrist as Mr. McCain.

[doobrah]

I would love to see Barack and Hillary morph into one President with the following qualities:

From Hill:
Her brilliant mind
Her experience in handling criticism from every-bleedin'-body
Her maturity
Her command of facts and strategy
Her political experience

From Barack:
His ability to connect with people
His bi-racial perspective
His humor
His ability to come across as real
His political experience

And then John Edwards for VP.

Is that too much to ask?

[maggiethecat]

Hey, doobrah, I've been hoping you'd weigh in. ;D

As for the above, I believe the appropriate phrase is "From your lips to God's ears."

[inuvik]

Like, which 2008 election?

They just called one in Alberta yesterday. Voting Day March 3.