and unless something fairly dramatic happens fairly soon, she’s going to be the Democratic nominee.
Clinton was, I thought, by far the most proficient in actually coming up with some substance in a minute, and even in the absurd 30-second round. She consistently answered the questions accurately and well. Edwards, the second-best, wasn’t bad in that respect, but he was less good than Clinton. Richardson, of whom I’ve been a fan, was distressingly weak tonight, especially in his disastrous response to the AIDS question. He’s got to get his act together if he wants to avoid Kucinich-land in the polls.
Obama wasn’t bad, but he wasn’t great either. Short-answer formats don’t play to his rhetorical strengths; instead, he can come off as overly wordy and a bit rambly. That’s how he struck me tonight.
Clinton, like it or not, is the default choice right now — she wins as long as she doesn’t lose, and she not only didn’t lose, she actually won tonight (IMHO). Unless she stumbles, or some other candidate dramatically steps up his game, it’s hard for me to see her not winning, especially in light of the heavily front-loaded schedule.
Am I overstating the case?
“Unless something dramatic happens fairly soon”? All manner of things could happen. Gaffes, dramas, scandals … and sometimes people just change their minds.
<
p>
Come on. It’s one debate. What this shows is that she’s a damn good politician, which is well known by folks in NY who saw her in the 2000 campaign.
<
p>
She’s formidable. So are the others.
Of course something dramatic could happen. But if it doesn’t, …
<
p>
And it’s not just this one debate. She pretty much won the last one too, for the same reasons: she’s very good at this format, and she’s well prepared. Do you really expect a different result in future debates, at this point?
IMO, Hillary, more than all the others, gives off a vibe of competence and knowledge that provides a sharp contrast to the past 7 years. There’s a reason she’s leading thus far, and the only way I see her slipping is if the anti-HRC vote consolidates behind one candidate. Unless Gore jumps in (very, very doubtful), I have a hard time seeing the anti-HRC being anyone other than Obama, because Edwards just seems repetitve and decidely non-fresh and Richardson doesn’t seem ready for prime time, at least not yet.
<
p>
Personally, I think Hillary would be the best President of all the candidates. That said, she WILL have a harder time in the general against a to-be-named Republican male than Obama/Edwards, which is why I hesitate to be a full-out Clinton supporter. As far as President goes, anyway, I think a certain type of unconscious sexism runs deeper than even anti-black or anti-Latino sentiment. I’ve always thought that a black man will be President before any woman.
<
p>
I’m certainly not saying that’s the only reason Hillary’s negatives are high, but it plays a MAJOR role. The idea that she’s “overly ambitious” and manipulative is based more on the fact that she’s a successful woman than any actual contrast with the other candiates.
Even though I am an independent, I will not be voting Republican, at least in national elections, until the GOP rediscovers its own philosphical footings.
<
p>
On paper, then, that makes HRC my favorite. But she is scary in that she is most likely to reanimate the right wing, which is presently sucking wind.
<
p>
She is noth the strongest candidate and the one most likely to leave the Republican nominee a fighting chance.
<
p>
I think you have it exactly right with this comment. I worry about some red-state Dems with Hillary topping the ticket.
<
p>
I do think that if nominated, Hillary’s competence will show through and perhaps change some of the pre-existing sentiment about her out there. But the fact that her negatives are consistently around 45% to 50% scares me.
GD small keyboard, and fat fingers.
Al Gore will be the nominee. He has the best credentials.
<
p>
When the mud slinging begins, your going to see stuff about Hillary Clinton that will scare the crap out of you , that is if the Little Rock crowd gets ginned up. She just has too much baggage and skeletons rattling around. The other potential candidates may not have the best resumes, but they aren’t scary.
<
p>
Hillary Clinton strikes me as a woman who could do something really, really, bad to someone without a single qualm or remorse. As big a fool as he is, I genuinely believe that WJC genuinely has remorse for many of the things he has done in his life and I believe, as much as I dislike him, there are deeds that are even beyond him.
Not Hillary, she is capable of anything.+
Ummm … were you on the moon from 1992-2000? The “Little Rock crowd” was frothing at the mouth for most of that time, and they did their darndest to bring down Bill, Hillary, and everyone who ever had anything to do with either of them. For God’s sake, they tried to convince the country that she murdered Vince Foster. One of Hillary’s positives, IMHO, is that she’s already been subject to scrutiny well beyond what most candidates will ever have to endure. There just can’t be many undiscovered skeletons in her closet.
Hilary won tonight (like last time). She’s steady. Her answers were to the question, a mixture of facts and emotion. A real professional on the stage, and again showing the others how it’s done. She’s the only one who emerges from the debate looking ready to move into 1600 Pennsylvania tomorrow.
<
p>
Obama was in a no-win situation. Anything short of amazing would be counted as a loss for him, given the subject matter and audience. And Obama has hardly amazing.
<
p>
Edwards. Was I the only one who tired of hearing how every question was one the Edwards took personally and/or based his campaign upon? It seemed a little thick.
<
p>
Richardson came off as unsteady. He’s weak in debates, especially on domestic policy. Too much canned stuff. His AIDS answer was weak and off-topic, but he closed strong on Darfur.
<
p>
The others I won’t go into, though I have to admit I fully looked forward to Gravel’s answer each round. I want to keep him around just for the excitement.
<
p>
That aside, when you’re the 8th person to answer a question, how are you going to add anything new?
<
p>
PS: Nice to see sco, JimCaralis, and AmberPAW at the debate watch tonight.
8 candidates and 30 second answers isn’t condusive to having any real winner. I don’t think there was a concise winner tonight. Hillary certainly had the big moment, which I guess means she wins the PR battle, but I don’t think she actually won.
<
p>
However, I do generally agree with you on your basic breakdown: Clinton and Edwards did well, Obama did okay and Richardson was UGH. I actually do agree with not going to Beijing for the Olympics, but that’s not what I would have focused on with that question. Richardson’s candidacy has been an utter disaster; I’m not saying he can’t win, but if he does, it won’t be because he’s at the PR game. It’ll be in spite of what he says. That’s a tough mountain to climb.
I wouldn’t say that his campaign has been a total disaster at all. He is getting good traction in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which, relative to the other candidates who started at 2 or 3 percent, is more than nothing.
<
p>
If Richardson can come close to Edwards in fundraising in Q2, he might just pull Edwards down to the second tier — he won’t push himself over that, yet. But he’s making steady progress.
… who needs successes?
<
p>
I have issues with Richardson, but I find him very interesting.
I think his candidacy has been a disaster, but that doesn’t mean I think his campaign is. People are intrigued by him once they know more about him. He has great credentials and, based on that alone, many people will vote for him. Because of his Iowa/NH polling, I really do consider him right up there with the “big 3.” Or maybe it’s really a big 2 and little 2.
<
p>
I’m not saying he won’t eventually win, but if he does it’s going to be because of his deep resevoir of experience… not his speaking ability and fantastic candidacy.
You and I agree 100%. Hmm….that’s not right.
<
p>
But yes, Richardson won’t win on speaking ability, any more than Obama will win on deep experience. And it seems that once the dust settles next week, Richardson will have raised more on Q2 and have more cash on hand than Edwards, and will be leading in NH and NV, trailing him in SC and IA. Which makes it a tie for the bronze medal.
<
p>
Of course, think about the folks who were leaders at this point in years past: Gephardt, Lieberman, Hart, Kerry…would you want your candidate ahead at this point?
[quote]But yes, Richardson won’t win on speaking ability, any more than Obama will win on deep experience.[/quote]
<
p>
Which is why Obama-Richardson would be so formidable, but unfortunately Richardson is not doing well in the debates or on meet the press, but I think he can bring a lot of experience to either of the Big 3 since they essentially have no relevant experience, he helps balance Obama the best, but he and Edwards could also bring in lots of Western states. In my opinion Hillary is beyond help and is the only factor that could lose the election.
<
p>
Why is this? Is your concern with experience, speaking ability, charisma, or something else? Other than the pure politics of a Hillary candidacy, which I’m also concerned about (i.e. the effect on downticket races in the Midwest/South), what is it that you don’t like?
<
p>
IMO, she comes off as the most competent and knowledge of all the other candidates, and it’s not that close. So I’m interested why others don’t like her.
She certainly can win a debate, that’s for sure.
<
p>
And I’ve never been all that impressed with Obama’s speaking ability. I don’t think his speech at the convention, the one that put him on the map, is truly reflective of his real ability. If it’s not some big speech, he comes off as long-winded and boring. Then again, maybe I’m just spoiled by having an amazing Governor who puts any of these candidates to shame on the Speaking Department.
I have a list
<
p>
1) She cannot win its just that simple
<
p>
She has 45% negative going into the primary season, that means if we live in a 48/48 country in terms of party registration the GOP just needs to do 2% better than its base to win. Also the GOP base is divided right now, a lot of them won’t come out, unless of course its Hillary. The second shes either nominated or a front runner the GOP who fall in line not in love will stop this infighting over whose the real conservative and just pick one of the McRomdys. Shes the only way we can lose
<
p>
2)She is a spineless Kerry esque politician without principles
<
p>
Sorry, but I think this year even a proud progressive Democrat can win, we don’t need another focus group tested pretends to be moderate Democrat wiggle their way out of conservative votes in the primary and liberal votes in the general, I am sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and she is clearly not a true progressive. Had she been she would have been against the war or at least regretted voting for it, shed oppose permanent bases, shed support some form of universal health coverage, shed be proudly pro choice, and she would definitely not vote to ban flag burning.
<
p>
3)Tired of dynastys
<
p>
America should not be dominated by two political families, its just unhealty to our democracy and a little frightening
<
p>
4)She has no real experience
<
p>
Would anyone say any other first lady is qualified to be President? Or the wife of a Senator or the husband of a Governor? No, this is because the spouse of a politician doesnt have any real power, doesnt cast any votes, doesnt sign any bills, doesnt order any invasions. I am sorry, even if you were the most powerful First Lady your still not qualified. And if you take away that she has the same amount of time in the Senate as Edwards and she really has been quiet in the Senate. Name a bill shes passed, an initiative she spearheaded, a committee she chaired or made waves on.
It cant be done and it can be for others.
1 – She was high negatives. Yeah, Hillary is hated by some 45% of the country, but those numbers aren’t going to change much. Most people have an opinion of Hillary that’s pretty locked-in, as opposed to anyone else running. He can be pretty sure her negs won’t budge because there’s nothing new to throw at her. We have no idea if that’s true with Obama, or the Tier 2 candidates because their images are still subject to change from either side.
<
p>
3 – Maybe you’re tired of dynasties (though you can’t really marry into a dynasty). Do we have any hard polling that Americans, particularly swing voters, are?
<
p>
2/4 – According to you, Hillary has no record, but she has a record as a flip-flopper. She’s spineless, but stands firm on her stance on the war. Let’s face it — you’re saying that she’s too conservative. Fine. And that’s a negative in the general why? Because people won’t vote for her in Rhode Island?
<
p>
Finally, you talk about her inexperience. I agree that being First Lady counts for little. But I do think being a Senator counts. Her legislative record is about equal to Kerry’s was in 2004, frankly. Argue against what she has done, don’t say she’s done nothing and hope nobody checks a website.
<
p>
Having 8 years in the Senate beats 6 years in the pre-terrorism, pre-defecit age, or a whopping two years. If experience counted that much , this race would be between Biden and Richardson. (NB: Hillary right now is probably my fourth or fifth choice.)
She was high negatives. Yeah, Hillary is hated by some 45% of the country, but those numbers aren’t going to change much.
<
p>
It doesn’t matter what the nationwide popular opinion is. What matters is the opinion in the states weighted by the electoral votes. The electoral college is intentionally slanted to give an advantage to more rural states. What are her stats in regards the electoral college vote?
<
p>
According to you, Hillary has no record, but she has a record…
<
p>
In point of fact, she does have a record as an administrator, which, as far as I’m concerned, is the importatant issue in regards a president. Remember how well she did with “Hillary-care” in the early 1990s? Not too well. And, it can be argued, that debacle was one reason that the Dems lost congress in 1994. She was incompetent.
It’s true rural states have somewhat more of an influence in the electoral college, but I’m not entirely sure Hillary would do that poorly there. The conventional wisdom when she was running for Senate in 2000 was that she’d get drubbed in upstate New York, but she far exceeded expectations there, actually winning rural areas and doing decently in the burbs (which Lazio represented).
<
p>
And as far as First Lady experience, I’m surprised that everyone thinks it counts for nothing. Maybe after 7 years of Laura Bush this seems logical, but (for example), would anyone argue that Eleanor Roosevelt’s time in the White House was useless and played no role in her future successes as part of the United Nations and civil rights movement? Hillary played a major policymaking role in the White House (as well as in the AR Governor’s mansion) and experienced how things actually work.
<
p>
(As an aside, it’s true the 1994 health care reforms failed, but not only are they, along with the “Contract With America”, a vastly overrated reason for the Republican takeover, but it indicates to me she’s willing to tackle major issues and not avoid them like Bush has done. Her health care plan was far from perfect, but that was 1994 when the appetite for (say) single-payer was less than today).
First of all, she has a strong record of success in the Senate for her state, which is probably how she won over some many rural converts. Second, if it hadn’t been for Senator Moynihan’s manic quest for welfare reform at the expense of universal healthcare, we probably would not have lost Congress in 1994. Third, let’s not forget the massive campaign funded by the healthcare industry against Hillary’s plan, which greatly weakened public support for universal care. Fourth, her husband became convinced of the need for some private competition, so let’s not assume that was all Hillary’s doing. Now, of course, Hillary made many rookie mistakes, including not predicting the campaign against her plan by the industry, and not appreciating the consensus she would need to reach with members of Congress to get anything passed, but she was hardly incompetent. She’s the best known failure at universal healthcare because she is the only national figure to attempt it. But in many ways Hillary Clinton has won the debate. The majority of americans now believe we should have universal healthcare. Perhaps you don’t recall, but the Republicans have always maintained healthcare is a privilege not a right. Finally, Hillary has had some success in health care reform. She was one of the architects of SCHIP, the largest federal expansion of children’s health coverage. SCHIP expires this fall. Currently, Democrats and some moderate Republicans are using the SCHIP renewel to vastly expand coverage. Hillary’s proposal is the most expansive, with those 400% of the poverty rate (82k for a family of 4) will eligible, children up to 25 eligible, and no cap for the number of children that can enroll. Hillary may be many things, incompetent is not one of them.
You only get passes for rookie mistakes if you’re Deval….
Hey, it’s easy to “bring home the bacon” when you’re a legislator. All you do is screw the taxpayers in the other states, while the legislators in the other states are screwing your taxpayers. I’s a time-honored ritual. Everyone get screwed. I’m surprised that you don’t understand that.
<
p>
As to the point, yes, indeed, Hillary was incompetent in the way that she handled HillaryCare. Apparently, she was too stupid to understand that there were a number of interests that needed to be addressed in order to get anything through. Including the many levels of medical care and financing inefficiency that I have described here myself in the past few months and will not repeat here but that lead to employment for some people. Hillary was apparently too stupid to recognize that she needed to address their concerns.
<
p>
Incompetent? Most certaintly. Willfully incompetent? We’ll see. She set back government-managed health care (if not single payer) for at least a generation.
<
p>
Oh, and let me mention. Our primary health care provider in the USofA is the world-renowned Lahey Clinic. Do you know how long it takes to get to see a specialist there? Three months or so. Our primary health caer provider in Germany is Dr. Kessler. Do you know how long it takes to get to see a specialist from him? About ten minuntes. Do you know what the cost of health care is in Germany, in comparison to the US? Divide by two.
<
p>
Thank you, Hillary.
single handedly brought down universal health care for a generation. Have you been in Germany for the past two decades or what? The old gaurd in Washington, particularly Moynihan were not interested in solving health care. The health insurance companies scared the hell out of the american public, which is only now coming to its senses about health care. Hillary made some serious strategic mistakes yes, but she is hardly the reason we are only now stumbling toward universal health care. Again, if anything she ultimately won the debate.
I sincerely don’t care about what Moynihan had to say–he’s been dead for a decade, so why do you continue bringing him up? The issue about Hillarycare is that she neglected to include all of the stakeholders (i.e., the people raking money off the system) into the deliberations, before she presented her proposal. That was dumb. And, as a result, unless other stakeholders (primarily payers) call a hold on the current American system, it’s going to continue. Is that what you want? If so, fine. I don’t really care. It’s going to bankrupt you. We’re in the process of moving our investments elsewhere.
you’re doing with your “investments”. Agree to disagree, buddy. I’m not going to respond to hyperbole.
…apparently you northerners don’t.
<
p>
You can disagree all you want to. I won’t.
Richardson’s response to the AIDS question clearly indicated to me that he’s simply not confortable in the debates — it was rambling and didn’t really make a whole lot of sense.
<
p>
This contrasted with Obama’s funny moment when he clarified Biden’s comment about he and Obama going for AIDS testing, which showed that he’s quite comfortable in the limelight.
Let’s go poke sticks at the Chinese. Boycott their olympics and humiliate them.
<
p>
Humiliating asians in public is a good way to get your throat cut.
Asians were so prone to violent tendoncies. Those crazy asian buddhists must be the most aggressive, huh? /snark off
<
p>
Boycotting the Olympics isn’t about “humiliating the Chinese.” It’s an attempt to get them to a) do the right thing in Darfur and b) do the right thing in China. It isn’t exactly a nice regime to its people and the Chinese Government is one of the worst offenders in Darfur. We have some leverage here, if we wanted to use it, but I doubt it’s going to happen because apparently America doesn’t care about genocides in Africa.
<
p>
China is going to extreme ends to make sure the Olympics over there is a resounding success. If they don’t mind genocide in Darfur, I say we help them win more medals by boycotting it too.
Here’s how I see it-
<
p>
This forum was kind of narrow in subject-It wasn’t like the MSNBC or CNN debates-it was more socially aligned I feel than focused on hard politics (security, etc.)
<
p>
Once the field winnows to about 4 viable candidates-which I think will happen (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards , and Bill Richardson are the top choices-one of these guys will be the nominee), debates held will be able to be more substantive and perhaps people like Gov. Richardson will be able to give much better answers. I believe that is the case all the time.
<
p>
Now to the candidates-on debating skills/experience:
<
p>
Obama: Definitely a rising star in the Democratic Party, but I have reservations about sending someone this experienced to the White House. (Mike Bloomberg feels the same (check NY Papers). Is a very good debater.
<
p>
Clinton: All this talk about experience is very skeptical. She was a First Lady for 18 years (1980-1982, Bill Clinton was not Governor). What I do not fundamentally understand is why people say she has the experience to be President-when all she really did, if one thinks about it-was look over her husband’s shoulder. Its not like she sat in on National Security Council meetings or went to the Situation Room all the time. The Office of First Lady is a wonderful platform to advocate many issues. And no doubt that being a U.S. Senator is even better for those issues-and that she is a good debater, as well. But, in terms of politics SHE IS JUST AS QUALIFIED AS FMR. SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS. Some people might agree that she is merely riding her husband’s coattails-(which are mighty long), and I think people are tired of the whole dynasty thing. See what Senator Obama said about his opponent-in terms of her readiness.
<
p>
Edwards: As the Democratic nominee for Vice-President and a candidate previous in his own right-I believe he (and Obama) have the most to gain-aside from Richardson. He’s been vetted before by the public and I felt in 2004 he was qualified to be Vice-President of the United States. I think his plans are very straightforward and honest and I also believe he has a decent chance, despite what is being said.
<
p>
Richardson: I believe he is the most qualified candidate for President on both sides. Debating skills aside-which for me is HARDLY AN INDICATOR of how a president would perform-its in what he/she does or has done. This guy has worked his heart out to turn around New Mexico, and has done it all before. REMEMBER, President Clinton trusted him with an Ambassadorship at the United Nations, of which he handled in a good way, and the Secretariat of the Energy Department (even though towards the end it was mired in scandal-although TRUST ME IT IS OLD NEWS). This guy has President written all over his resume. Remember-in 1976, a Governor was elected–many congressmen ran, but a Southern Governor won the nomination, in 1992 it was the exact same, and I believe in my heart that it will be a Western governor (Notice how the candidates for President (Governors that is) on the Democratic side have been geographically migrating west (1976-Georgia), (1992-Arkansas), and I believe and hope 2008-New Mexico.
<
p>
No comments on Vice-President Gore, as he is not in the race, but if he was would be an ABSOLUTELY formidable candidate.
“hard politics.”
<
p>
Wow.
<
p>
No wonder why Brown v. the Board of Education just got gutted. No wonder why Americans en masse want to see brown people thrown out of our country. No wonder why almost 50 million Americans don’t have health insurance. None of those things are hard politics.
You’re like the guy who whined because I told him he wasn’t “independent” but “unenrolled”. “Soft” politics is correct political science terminology, and that’s all it is. If someone uses it correctly, it doesn’t mean they want to segragate the schools.
I think Ryan has a point.
More classes on Political Science than I could possibly count, getting As in them more often than not, and I’ve heard people use “soft news,” “soft power,” but never “soft politics.” I also went to a school with a good political science department and was a TA for quite a while. Needless to say, I don’t think a lot of my professors would agree that social policies are “soft politics,” especially since many of them taught classes related to social politics: I took a seminar on Civil Rights in America, Judicial Politics and on Campaigns and Elections – as well as a 300 level course on Constitutional Law, among others. I took history classes on Eugenics and Genetics, Urban history, the 60s and many others. They were all related in many ways to our country’s social politics. Never did “soft politics” come up. In googling “soft politics,” almost nothing comes up.
<
p>
Suffice it to say, you’re speaking through your…
A couple of seminars and a 300 level course doesn’t make you an expert. You speak with the hubris of a grad student finishing a dissertation.
<
p>
Read Joseph Nye. That’s a good start. If you’ve not heard of him — or read him — demand a refund from your college.
Don’t brush off a seminar – that’s very serious work.
<
p>
But you’re right, I have read Nye. Yet, Nye doesn’t talk about Soft Politics… he talks about Soft Power, a term I brought up in my previous reply. Like I said, not even a google search makes use of your so-called term. It’s certainly not a term regularly used in academia. Feel free to claim it and make it your own =p
<
p>
Nye is a big proponent of today’s concept of soft power, he was really the guy who coined it. I think you got the words and terminology mixed up. Soft power is basically our influence around the world – not social policy. It’s our reputation, the ability of our diplomats and our olive branches. International social policy could effect soft power – for example, if we were a more generous country through government funds, we’d probably have more soft power at this point. If we didn’t kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, we’d have a helluva lot more soft power today.
<
p>
However, like I’ve said, soft power is an International Relations term – and, when it comes to IR, I didn’t just take a class. I taught it. However, feel free to google both terms and Nye together and see which one is more fruitful. I gaurantee a Soft Power Nye search will yield more interesting results, because that’s what he talks about.
Ryan, I know seminars are serious work — that’s why I took a couple of them. I use the term “soft politics” from the French term — I took a coupla polisci courses in French in pursuit of my degree. If the term hasn’t migrated to English yet, that’s a shame because it’s bloody useful.
Admit it.
<
p>
Seriously, this is stupid, petty and stubborn. You used a word that I’ve never heard of, despite the fact that I have a large Polisci background. Then, when I challenge it, you say ‘read Nye.’ When I inform you that Nye had nothing to do with that phrase, now you’re saying something completely different.
<
p>
I can’t stand that stuff.
<
p>
Everyone is wrong sometimes. I’m wrong far more often than I’d like. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not going to continue to fact check you, despite the fact that you’re being about as reliable as my old mechanic right now, especially now that fact checking you would resort to learning French. Needless to say, these kinds of moments are very telling in the blogosphere and hopefully you won’t have too many more of them.
Ryan,
<
p>
I’m frankly sick and tired of you stalking my comments and diaries, misinterpreting half of what I say, calling me every name in the book, and scrabbling desperately to obtain some air of condescension. I realize in your mind you’ve cast me as “the baaaaddddd Democrat” to read things into what I say. You seem desperate for a rhetorical combatant, and for some reason, I was picked. I’ve tolerated it for a while because, hey you’re just a kid, and we all do stupid things when young, but this is getting really over the top. I’m not going to apologize for being bilingual and I’m not going to apologize for pointing you to the vocabulary that Nye uses. The first thing you ever said to me was called me a troll, and with every day the irony of that richens.
Nye uses – or any other serious American Political Scientist. What the french use or don’t use, I don’t know. However, I certainly don’t care whether or not you speak French, English, Spanish or even Swahili. More power to you, but that doesn’t make you right. And you still can’t admit it! Jeez.
<
p>
Now, as for your assertation that I’m “stalking” you, that can’t be further from the case. In fact, at least in this situation, it appears to be the opposite. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you responded to my origional comment first. You pushed these inherently incorrect positions. I corrected them. I’d have done the same to people I get along with great here.
<
p>
I responded to demvic, then you responded to me saying…
<
p>
<
p>
And now you’re calling me the bad-guy stalker? Get real.
<
p>
You launched a negative, personal attack… calling me a whiner. I mostly ignored it – jumping onto what bothered me about the post – the use of “soft politics,” which is not and has never been synonymous with social policies in America. You couldn’t allow yourself to be wrong, so you desperately attached your idea to Nye – who doesn’t talk about soft politics. He does talk about something using the word “soft,” but it has nothing to do with social policies and can only be tangently related, if talking about aid to foreign countries.
<
p>
Then, even after I’ve corrected you on Nye, you still say:
<
p>
No, no, no! He doesn’t use that “vocabulary,” no matter how loud you scream that he does. You just said, only a post ago, that you now understand it was from France. But it’s not? So, which is it, Mr. Reliable? I’ll tell you one thing, it’s not Nye. Nye was part of required reading when I TA’d International Relations 151. It’s not him.
<
p>
I will defend my points of view by the facts I have learned over the course of my life. You attacked me and I defended myself. Sometimes, I guess, that isn’t comfortable. So, if it makes you feel better in your head to think that I started it, you can believe what you will. However, I’m not going to ignore people who are wrong just because you feel uncomfortable. Sorry. Bullying me by saying this is some sort of personal thing – when it isn’t – isn’t going to make me stop, either. I don’t like a bully, especially someone who can’t admit when they’re wrong.
The Presidency is fundamentally about communicating: with senior members of the administration, Congress, the public, leaders of other countries, governors, etc. If a guy (or gal) can’t communicate effectively on the campaign trail, I don’t see how he’ll be effective in the office.
George Washington, James Madison, et al, weren’t terribly great speakers. Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was an instant flop. Methinks I disagree with you.
<
p>
Case in point: Bill Richardson. He’s been a very effective
<
p>
-governor
-UN Ambassidor
-Secretary of Energy
-congressman
<
p>
Yet, he seems to have the debating skills of a gerbil.
<
p>
So, I’m guessing there’s more to it than debating skillz. In a debate, you want to make yourself look good while making your opponents look bad, often on national television. In a discussion with Putin, you want to make Putin feel comfortable while you dicuss some very uncomfortable things with him, in private. You don’t need a great debater to do that – in fact, someone who is a brilliant speaker could make someone else uncomfortable in that kind of situation.
<
p>
I say all this – and I don’t even intend to vote for Richardson.
I wrote pretty much the same thing this afternoon, hours before your comment. Jinx!
There, you can talk now.
but it is still so early. Frankly, most the country is unaware of the debates – or ignoring them if they are aware.
<
p>
Remember that Lieberman was ahead for most the year leading up to the primaries four years ago…
Why do people keep saying this? I don’t think it could be true… can someone please source their claims?
I linked for a previous comment. Sometimes I think we should front-page this permanently so people keep it in mind:
<
p>
CNN Gallup Poll (2003)
8/4-8/6 9/8-9/10
Joe Lieberman 18 21
Dick Gephardt 15 16
Howard Dean 15 11
John Kerry 12 15
Bob Graham 5 4
John Edwards 5 6
Carol Moseley Braun 5 6
Al Sharpton 4 5
Dennis Kucinich 2 2
Other 4 –
No one 5 2
No opinion 10 12
Source
<
p>
Notice the “no opinion” option is only slightly above where it is on polls these days, falsifying the “people are paying more attention this cycle” canard.
Though I think there are clear differences between then and now. Clinton is in far better shape than Lieberman ever was, because Joe’s organization and fundraising didn’t come anywhere close to Hillary’s now. And as much as Clinton is despised by some, she’s very well loved by others. Also, IMO, the top of the field this election (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson…and maybe Gore?) is far stronger than the names in that 2003 poll. I think there were also polls that suggested that if Hillary had entered for 2004, she would have trounced the field, including Joementum.
<
p>
I agree that’s it’s far too early to be crowning anyone, but it’s abundantly clear that Hillary, for better or worse, is in a very strong position — much stronger than Lieberman in 2003.
however when Hillary Clinton was added to those 2004 polls, she was way ahead as she is now. Also, people are paying alot more attention to this race earlier than they were in 2004. She may well lose her lead, but I don’t think the Lieberman comparison carries alot of weight.
but to add to what you said, the whole comparison to 2003-2004 is really poor. It’s worth noting that Jerome over at MyDD has addressed this question in respons to kos’s post about comprable polling numbers.
<
p>
I think comparisons are nice, but there’s a few main things that make this cylce significantly different from the last – so much so seeing where 04 candidates were relative to 08 candidates might not be fruitful.
<
p>
First of all, the top three candidates are all already celebrities/of celebrity status. Clinton is, well, Clinton. Edwards was a VP nominee, and Obama is obviously famous for his speech.
<
p>
Second, in 2003-2004, Howard Dean et al were just beginning to use the internet as a tool to organize. If you remember, Howard Dean’s meet-ups were pretty disorganized, yet they were also comprably high-tech for the time. Daily Kos’s first day was only in mid 2002, so really that aspect of the blogosphere was just in the beginning. We didn’t have Blue Hampshire, I don’t think, or any other local/state blogs. Web 2.0 technology is starting to be used in innovative ways–the effects of which are still unknown. See, for example, Obama’s domination of Facebook. More, donating online was just in it’s beginnings, but now Obama is claiming 250,000 small donors — a good deal of those through the internet.
<
p>
Next, 2007-2008 political season is practically on steroids. It’s not just that candidates are breaking records online or in the money, it’s that they’re having bigger rallies, more doors knocked, more people involved, more people paying attention, more impressions made sooner than ever.
<
p>
And the schedule – oh my the schedule. Suppose Edwards wins Iowa and Obama wins South Carolina. Even in that scenario, Clinton could still win New Hampshire or Nevada, but most especially Florida. There’s just so many delegates that Obama and Edwards won’t be able to pick up that she will be able to. It’s going to be a lot harder to move the national field.
<
p>
So, yeah, was Lieberman ahead back in the day? Yeah…but he’s a much weaker politician that Clinton is, the field is a lot tougher this time around, the internet is playing an increased role, the scale of the election at this point in time is totally different…it’s hard to make a good comparison of 03-04 to 07-08.
She had the only answer of the night that I thought was really a home run. I’m not behind anyone yet, and I understand that she is particularly good in these formats, but nevertheless, it was impressive.
<
p>
The answer I am talking about was during the discussion of AIDS. To paraphrase she said: Let’s put this in perspective, if AIDS was the leading cause of death for white women aged 25-34 we’d be solving this problem. It was a spot-on answer, she elaborated, but hooked everyone from the outset. So she managed to address both the questions of fairness and equality which were rightly omnipresent last night, as well as the specific issue.
<
p>
Doesn’t mean I agree that she might start running away with it, but I do think it points to her strength and preparation as a candidate.
we eradicated coronary artery disease, lung cancer, and prostate cancer twenty years ago.
I think Hillary was a clear winner in the debate. And I think she is the candidate who is the most ready, the most qualified and the most tested.
<
p>
For me, it’s a no brainer…I like a lot of the Democratic candidates. But, I want the one who can win and who can hit the ground running….it’s way past time to sweep the dirt out of the White House.
Washington Post was wondering yesterday.
Richardson really does come off as the ideal VP candidate considering his extensive experience with diplomacy on both a national and international stage. This has generally been the primary role of a VP before the Cheney 4th state was created. He also has the extensive resume that the current leaders in the race (Clinton & Obama) are lacking as junior senators.
But Richardson was in President Clinton’s cabinet and his ambassador to the UN. If Hillary and Bill Richardson have a good relationship (which I do not know nor have I read any articles one way or the other) with his qualifications he might be the front runner.
Actually, Christie Todd Whitman might be a pretty good Unity-type candidate for VP.
She’s the most qualified WAR HAWK. She was pro-Iraq from the beginning and would keep us there. Enough said.
<
p>
If you want the candidate who is “the most qualified” you want Bill Richardson. I don’t think I’ll be voting for him, though, because qualification isn’t everything. There are issues he has taken that I take offense too and can’t get past.
is spot-on. I do think, however, that Obama edged out Edwards who, to me, comes across as shamelessly pandering. I wish he’d stop talking about himself in ways that merely grate inform instead of demonstrate, i.e., he should show more and tell less. (Sound familiar?) He assumes, at rather great expense, that the audience is infamiliar with his history, and that, imho, is a huge mistake.
On Demand has it in the “Get Local” folder, under “WGBH”, listed as “PBS Presidential Primary”
In December of 2003, Howard Dean was the all-but-crowned king of the polls and John Kerry was being beaten, in several polls, by Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich. Everybody was saying it would be Dean and no one else.
<
p>
I have been assiduously ignoring the debates and polls as waaayyy to early and too far out. I’ve seen too many front-runners become also-rans in the blink of an eye.
<
p>