From what we saw and heard:
Hillary looked good, but didn’t win.. Every time her voice rises above of the Madame DeFarge monotone, I hear the voice of Patti LuPone on the Casa Rosada proclaiming the Peronist dictatorship in Argentina. Clearly the second manliest Democrat.
Obama looked over processed tonight. Obama had his first falter; he looked rattled after his mechanical and blatantly insincere answer about campaign financing. He’s winning the early on line polls so what do I know.
Edwards. Ann Coulter got it right, what a sissy. His joke about Hillary’s hideous jacket belies more about him than her. We already know Hillary has poor taste so I think the voting public would overlook the appalling choice of style and color anyway.
Kucinich. Crazier than a March hare.
Gravel. Even crazier than Kucinich. I wonder if the 400,000 Vietnamese who died in the post war purges and the 1,000,000 million or so Cambodians who died in the Killing Fields share Mike’s pride in ending the US withdrawal from Southeast Asia.
Dodd. Chris came out with a little more spunk in this debate. However, he sounds like a lifetime member of Congress, which, of course, he is, so spunk is still boring. I wonder if he has 5% national name ID?
Richardson. My heart goes out to him, I think the role of candidate suits him poorly. For example, having acted as a diplomatic agent of the Bush Administration-to Sudan about Darfur I believe-Richardson knows that US aid to Africa has quadrupled under the Bush Administration but he accuses W of ignoring Africa? Every debate he looks worse. However, I still hope that if one of this delusional crew actually becomes President, they make Richardson Secretary of State. At least he won’t require as many introductions.
This leaves old Joe Biden. The celebrity driven running dogs in the Main Stream Media won’t ever say it, but Joe won, hands down. Joe actually does track his worldview closer to reality than any of the Dems, for sure. Moreover, Joe actually comes off as pretty honest and courageous. It’s hard to tell the delusional anti-Iraq/appeasers/ anti-American coalition that makes up the Democrat primary constituency that we can’t just leave Iraq, and Joe is leaving himself wiggle room if elected. I actually agree with Joe about Darfur, we should have boots on the ground killing those Sudanese monsters much faster than can any backward UN gang from African nations. Ask the rape victims in the Congo how that’s working and you will get my point.
Joe kind of looked Presidential tonight, and likeable, two traits that could carry far. I think he’s al Qaeda’s least favorite Democrat and that makes him my favorite Democrat.
25 comments:
Biden gets good reviews from people who see him in person, and I think he has generally done well in the debates, although others find him too angry. I think he has a lot of room to move up in Iowa--probably won't crack the top three, though.
desmoinesdem
I missed the debates, as usual, since I am in Iraq but thanks for the recap.
I always liked Biden as he does seem sincere and intelligent at the same time.
Richardson messed up by shooting to the Left trying to become President and he is much smarter than he lets lately. I think he's dumbing himself down on purpose to appeal to base Democratic desires.
I will be in Iowa next week and then I head to my next assignment - AFRICA and the the Sudan project!
JULY: Clinton slams Obama for willingness to meet with troublesome world leaders...
APRIL: Clinton would begin diplomatic discussions with troublesome world leaders...
It was highlighted by a clash between the top 2008 Democratic contenders after Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. The Bush administration considers the nations regional troublemakers.
Mr Obama, who leads Democrats in fund raising and is looking to cut Ms Clinton's lead in polls, said it was important to search for areas "where we can potentially move forward" and added, "I think it's a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
Ms Clinton, the New York senator, disagreed, saying such meetings could be used as propaganda purposes.
"Certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria, until we know better what the way forward would be," she said.
I can’t help but like Biden. He really is a straight talker, sincere and smart. But since even Sporer kind-of-maybe likes him, there must be something seriously wrong with him… ;)
July 24, 2007
The Dems 2009 Agenda: Power & Payback
By William Murchison
The Democrats are poised to hurl America right over the cliff, to the rocks below.
Wait -- I didn't say they long to do such like, or that, in suicidal mood, they'd take the chance if they got it, assuming they win big in 2008.
I think if they do win, much of the creepy teeth-baring and chest-pounding they presently go in for will likely just . . . go away.
Which could be one reason for electing the Democrats: to make them put up or shut up. To oblige them to quit griping about the President from Hell and start doing something.
A reasonable guess (it seems to me) is that the Democrats believe 35 to 50 percent of what their congressional leaders and presidential candidates have routinely asserted for some time -- e.g.,
we need to run, run, run home from Iraq, as fast as our little legs can carry us;
rich people are too rich;
poor people are too poor;
inequality is increasing;
taxes should rise;
free trade is destroying the workers;
the U.S. automobile industry is helping ruin the environment;
oil companies are evil -- or anyway evil-ish;
communist Cuba has better health care than we do.
And so on.
Suppose the newly empowered Democrats got the chance in 2009 to act on these varied complaints.
Would they?
In fact, reality would set in, as it commonly (though not always) does when one acquires power, only to learn how many different and competing legislative visions have to be dealt with.
Take autos: Many Democrats say they want to compel poor, sputtering Detroit to build cars that get better mileage.
That's fine when you lack the power to do it (and when one of your most powerful congressmen, Michigan's John Dingell, is working to tie your hands).
But say you've got the votes. How hard do you propose, really, to jump up and down on a fragile industry whose workforce is close to 100 percent Democratic?
Not too hard? That's what I would bet.
Given the Democratic tilt of hedge fund billionaires and high-tech titans, precisely how do you propose limiting and/or taxing their admittedly vast compensation?
Do you really want to?
Democrats by and large are no more insincere than Republicans by and large in passionate enunciation of broad electoral aims, but the reality is that broad electoral aims get achieved only in time of crisis (e.g., the New Deal, the non-stop debacles of the Carter years) or after years of careful preparation (e.g., the Reagan- and Bush-era tax cuts). Or both.
The Democratic agenda in 2008 addresses only one actual crisis -- in Iraq.
Not even here have the Democrats actually thought through their own, ah, solutions, centered on American disengagement from the conflict.
I mean, one can't help wondering:
Aren't we talking about two different things here --
1) talking up American abandonment of Iraq and
2) actually watching as U.S. troops head for the hills, under White House orders, and Iraqis start blowing up one another in earnest?
One has the feeling that not even Harry Reid -- the Senate Democratic leader who can't seem to start his day until he's knocked "Bush and Rove" upside the head for incompetence -- looks forward to presiding over an international catastrophe.
So what eats at these people, these Democrats?
One more reasonable guess and I'll quit: Opportunism eats at them, gnaws their ankles, consumes their innards.
The Democrats frankly don't care what they say so long as whatever it is appears to:
inflame the voters,
stir discontent with the present Republican regime;
so long as it seems to lift the Democratic party a little nearer to the goal of power.
Yes, power, wonderful power!
Power to stick it to those who took power from you;
to pay them back good;
to rub their noses in powerlessness and humiliation.
I'd say that's the motive power of the Democrats right now: payback, vengeance, revenge.
Program? Ideas? Mere incidentals. They'll think of something when the time comes.
Can you hardly wait 'til it does?
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Edwards is mad and won't take it anymore
By: Roger Simon
July 24, 2007 06:23 AM EST
CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Much as we recognize that the questions and questioners at these presidential debates have become far more important than the answers and answerers, we feel an obligation to spend some time evaluating who actually won and lost the Democratic debate here Monday night.
It was a very close competition and the best debate yet. The numbers do not lie. And here they are, once again guaranteed accurate to three decimal places:
FIRST PLACE: John Edwards
Analysis: John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side. He is bold and he will use his boldness for you.
Here was his key response, his voice rising as he went along:
“Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.
I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate.
They are not going to give away their power!
WE WANT THE POWER. THEY WON'T GIVE US THEIR POWER! THEY WON'T NATIONALIZE VOLUNTARILY. WE MUST DO AS HUGO CHAVEZ DID. NATIONALIZE EVERY INDUSTRY!!!!
The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them!”
CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS GUY? WE WILL FORCE YOU TO GIVE US WHAT WE WANT!
The triangulation line was a not so subtle whack at Bill Clinton and, presumably, Hillary Clinton.
Edwards was not able to sustain his outrage for a full two hours, but he scored enough points throughout the debate.
We were forced to deduct 3.5 points, however, for his dumb attack on Hillary Clinton’s suit jacket.
We like her suit jacket -- we thought it was a vision in coral, but that is not why it was a stupid attack.
Write this down, guys: Attack her policies, attack her past votes, attack her personality if you want to, but don’t attack what she is wearing.
It looks sexist and cheap.
FOURTH PLACE: Bill Richardson
Analysis: Quick response is clearly not his strength. But when he can make himself relax, he can demonstrate his knowledge.
On why he would scrap the No Child Left Behind program, he not only ably listed what he thinks its flaws are but also proposed a minimum wage for all teachers of $40,000 per year.
And he not only did the usual riff about improving science and math in the schools. He also did the surprising.
�I would have a major federal program of art in the schools,� he said. �Music, dancing, sculpture and the arts.�
And when is the last time you heard a presidential candidate talk about music, dancing, sculpture and the arts?
FIFTH PLACE: Joe Biden
Analysis: On Darfur, he was clear and strong. American troops on the ground? “Absolutely, positively,” he said. “Look, I'm so tired of this. Let's get right to it. Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because we can. We should now. Those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over.”
He was also very forthright in stating his belief that the United States could not possibly remove all troops from Iraq over the next six months even if it wanted to. But we had to subtract points for his answer on No Child Left Behind.
“It was a mistake,” he said. “And quite frankly, the reason I voted for it, against my better instinct, is I have great faith in Ted Kennedy, who is so devoted to education.”
So, like, Ted Kennedy brainwashed him?
Biden also got off a good line criticizing one of the questioners who called his assault-style rifle his “baby.”
“I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help,” Biden said.
That got a laugh and applause, but then, too typically, Biden went too far.
“I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun,” Biden said.
Bill Clinton, who believes in gun control just as much as Joe Biden does, got the votes of gun owners by winning them over, not insulting them. Maybe there is a lesson there?
WINNERS
John Edwards: In the first three debates, the former North Carolina senator really struggled to distinguish himself.
Last night, he found his voice.
Edwards ' outrage on a variety of issues -- most notably the inability to solve the health care crisis in the country -- came through loud and clear.
And, while traditionally voters don't like angry candidates, the Democratic electorate is in a decidedly feisty mood and Edwards' emotion seemed to fit the night.
Later kos addresses O'Reilly's claims that YearlyKos is a "hate" gathering, noting that "just about the entire Democratic Party leadership -- Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin" will be addressing the convention and WH '08ers Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson will all be participating in a presidential forum. Kos adds: "Anyone who tries to claim this is a "hate" gathering is saying, essentially, that the entire Democratic Party is a "hate" party. ...
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:44 a.m. EDT
Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton ran away from the "liberal” tag during Monday night’s Democratic debate, claiming instead that she is a "progressive.”
Early on in the CNN/YouTube-sponsored debate, a California resident posed these questions on his video: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word ‘liberal’? And would you use this word to describe yourself?”
Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.
"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.
"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.
"I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.
"So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”
Published on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 by the Huffington Post
What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?
by David Sirota
I often get asked what the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive" is.
The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, "Isn't 'progressive' just another name for 'liberal' that people want to use because 'liberal' has become a bad word?"
The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues.
It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society.
A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.
To put it in more concrete terms -
a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics.
A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor;
A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America.
A more recent review of the differences between libs and progs.
July 8, 2007
The Difference Between Liberals and Progressives
By Jim Arnold
I’m a progressive, not a liberal. No one seems to talk much about the difference, in fact the two are usually treated as being pretty much synonymous.
But there are differences, and I believe they’re significant.
But what distinguishes liberalism from progressivism is an inherent conflict of interests.
People with wealth and privilege might genuinely embrace progressive causes and issues, but so long as they benefit personally.
It’s not that liberals are muddle-headed or weak. They just don’t have a clear and pressing reason to succeed.
Main Entry: 2progressive
Function: noun
1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
liberal
One entry found for liberal.
Main Entry: liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, In a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.
"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.
"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.
Edwards had talked about "sacrifice," at the meeting, but Elizabeth's suggestion illustrated just how difficult it is to sell the specifics of sacrifice.
The concept of only eating food that is locally grown would only work if everybody only ate local.
Otherwise you've still got the other thousand or so tangerines that other people are eating.
Of course then you put the farmers in these areas that are usually poorer out of work because they are no longer able to sell their produce to us.
I doubt giving up one piece of fruit a day will make enough difference in carbon footprint to justify making people who are already poor poorer.
Caution: Nude Images: The Hillary Clinton for President Campaign celebrated the opening of its new San Francisco headquarters with a launch party on July 23, 2007.
The radical activist groups Breasts Not Bombs and Code Pink heard about the event and staged a surprise topless protest to publicize their anti-war message.
Prior to the Clinton protest the group held a similar demonstration outside the offices of Sen. Nancy Pelosi.
July 24, 2007
First Preseason Game -- Aug. 11
By Patrick Buchanan
Of all the preseason games in the run-up to the GOP nomination, none is more crucial than the Iowa Straw Poll.
As usual, it will be held in Ames, on Saturday, Aug. 11
Analysts have downgraded its importance since McCain and Rudy dropped out. They are mistaken.
The McCain-Giuliani forfeiture of the straw poll already testifies to its importance -- and to their weaknesses.
Rudy dropped out first. Why? His front-runner image would have been shattered had he been routed at Ames.
Rather than risk a beating, Rudy quit. By dropping out, he concedes that, today, he lacks the troops or organization to contest the caucuses in January.
And if he doesn't have them now, when and where does he find them?
Within hours of Rudy's forfeit, McCain threw in his hand.
With Rudy gone, McCain was not going to be able to beat the mayor, and he faced defeat by Gov. Romney, the Iowa front-runner, and even possible defeat by a second-tier candidate.
Since McCain dropped out, the weakness of his candidacy has been exposed, and Giuliani, still the front-runner, has been slowly sinking in national polls.
With Rudy and McCain out, the pressure is on Romney, who must win.
But significance now attaches to who runs second in the straw poll.
For this is the last, best chance a second-tier candidate -- Govs. Mike Huckabee and Tommy Thompson, Sen. Sam Brownback, and Reps. Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul -- has to show broad support.
It has been fairly said there are only three tickets out of Iowa: first-class, coach and Greyhound.
Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia, who had no organization in Iowa, has quit the race. The candidates who do not show strength at Ames will likely be packing it in, awaiting only their matching funds in January to pay off campaign debts.
The contest for No. 2 in the straw poll is thus the one to watch.
About Gov. Romney. His strategy has been set by his situation. A Massachusetts governor who had taken liberal stands on abortion, gay rights and guns, he needs to persuade the nominating wing of the party, first, that he is a conservative, second, that he is a winner.
As a twice-defeated Richard Nixon said in 1968, the only way to prove he is not a loser is to go "into the fires of the primaries."
Romney has to win neighboring New Hampshire to have a chance in South Carolina -- and to win New Hampshire, he must win Iowa. Hence, Romney has used up much of his early cash to secure both bastions. His success may be seen in the fact that he has run Rudy and McCain out of the straw poll, and is polling first in both states.
If Romney wins big at Ames, he will be heavily favored in the January caucuses. If he wins in January, he will have the "Big Mo" going into New Hampshire. A victory in Iowa is worth $50 million in free publicity eight days before New Hampshire, and a win in New Hampshire is worth even more heading for South Carolina and Florida.
The question that faces Rudi and McCain is this: Do they risk a defeat by Romney in Iowa, perhaps a humiliating third-place finish that dims their luster in New Hampshire? Or do they cede Iowa to Romney, write it off and wait for him in New Hampshire, as McCain waited for George W. Bush in 2000 and beat him?
Both McCain, who has less cash on hand than Ron Paul, and Rudy were back in Iowa last week. This suggests they are keeping their options open and have yet to decide to abandon Iowa altogether.
This is a difficult decision for both. How do they rally their troops, after having let them down by ducking the fight in Ames?
Up to now, Rudy seemed to have decided not to bet heavily on Iowa or New Hampshire, but save his chips -- he is the best-funded man in the race -- for Florida and Feb. 5, when New York, California and 18 states hold primaries. The problem with a wait-and-see strategy is that Romney may have unstoppable momentum, if he wins the first two big ones.
Fred Thompson, too, has a decision to make. Does he try belatedly to organize Iowa when Romney has had a year's head start and half a dozen other candidates have locked up the party activists? Or does he wait in New Hampshire to meet Romney head-on?
Thompson, who has put off any announcement before Labor Day, seems to have taken a pass on the straw poll, and his late entry in the national race gives him a compelling reason not to compete in Iowa. But that would mean that he, McCain and Rudy might all three be spectators on Jan. 14, when the caucuses are held and Romney collects a week's worth of favorable publicity before the three meet him in New Hampshire on Jan. 22.
Thus, the Iowa Straw Poll at Ames has already played a major role in the politics of 2008, even before it has been held.
Switchback might be dropping out next. His supporters all have plans to bomb an abortion clinic on that day and he found out that illegals can't vote in the Straw Poll.
Post a Comment