<p>"He had no idea who the guy was, and never even tried to pronounce his name. "</p>
<p>You must make a great living as a mind reader. Just goes to show how much our own prejudices influence how each of us sees things.</p>
<p>I saw Hillary jumping in with both feet and going on so long that I didn’t think Obama would ever get a word in without rudely interrupting.</p>
<p>vicariousparent: Oh, okay. I had no idea. They seem to be able to rebut anyway-- because they always insist that they have to comment (rebut) on a statement previously made by the other guy, and the facilitators always give them time to do this, so that’s why I didn’t think that was the issue. But, you know . . . “whatever.” :)</p>
<p>vicariousparent,
I’ll grant you her “whatever” comment was not up-to-par. And you are 100% correct, the advantage of going second in a debate is that you have a few minutes to formulate your response while gaining pointers from your opponent. For the past 2-3 debates HRC has been forced to lead off and it has been to his advantage. And don’t think that’s a coincidence…Tim Russert and Campbell Brown know damn well what they are doing. Obama has long been considered the lesser of the two in debating ability and they have successfully tilted the playing field his way.</p>
<p>Anyone who very carefully watches, reads and listens to the major media in this country cannot help but be aware of the preferential treatment Obama has been given.</p>
<p>“But there is no room for thoughtfulness in the turbulent world of Obamania.”</p>
<p>This seems to be the theme of the article, Mercymom. The electorate is all “intoxicated” with the man, and can no longer think for themselves. This is pretty much what Hillary has been saying for the last few weeks. </p>
<p>I wish she would stop it. If she wins, we need his supporters to beat McCain.
Insulting their intelligence isn’t the wisest strategy.</p>
<p>I think she wanted the Russia question because she was losing (and did lose) the part of the debate related to foreign policy, so she wanted another swing at the pinata. But she looked like a deer in the headlights. I think (doing some mind reading) she was struggling to find Medvedev’s name in her brain, it rattled around, and couldn’t come out. And then didn’t come out straight.</p>
<p>Is it useful to diss a future participant in serious negotiations with you without even knowing who he is, or his background?</p>
<p>I think Hillary has received far more preferential treatment by the media. If Obama had lost 11 in a row, from all parts of the country, do you think anyone would be taking him seriously? Do you think Hillary would even bother to debate him?</p>
<p>ASAP,
Go back and watch the debate. You will see Obama turn his head and look right at HRC after Russert asked the question. You will also see him never call Medvedev by name. All he did was agree to her response and then go on a repeat the well-known tale of Bush looking into the eyes of Putin blah, blah, blah. So, if he really knew how to pronounce Medvedev, then why did he just keep referring to him as the new Russian president!!!</p>
<p>Sorry to upset the Obama as god of all knowledge applecart.</p>
<p>I don’t think he’s the god of all knowledge, but I also don’t think you are a god who can look into his mind and know what he can and can’t pronounce, or know why he made a particular anti-Bush statement at that particular time.</p>
<p>.I really don’t think resorting to insults will help either candidate in November.</p>
<p>My impression was the same as mini’s. She was having a bit of a “senior moment” and couldn’t remember his name. It does matter when she said is name was something like “Med-ed-dova whatever.” It’s not like she put the accent on the wrong syllable; she got the name wrong. Why jump in to answer first if you can’t remember the name? I thought she was playing Jeopardy or Beat the Clock–hit the buzzer and hope you know the answer!</p>
<p>And if your complaint is that you are always forced to go first, why do it EVERY TIME either could answer first?–which is what she did last night. </p>
<p>I’d like to see a break down of how much time each actually spoke last night–my feeling was that Hillary got in at least 10 more minutes than Obama because she just would not stop and went on and on and on. Has anyone seen an actual analysis?</p>
<p>Both lie through their teeth about “opting out of or renogotiatng NAFTA”. They will do no such thing and are strong free traders.</p>
<p>“But there is no room for thoughtfulness in the turbulent world of Obamania.”</p>
<p>Why is it necessary to smear members of your own party with this kind of base insult?</p>
<p>Obama considers himself in support of “fair trade.” He would take issue with your claim that he lies through his teeth about renegotiating NAFTA.
His website has outlined some of his issues with it from the beginning. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What evidence do you have that he is lying through his teeth?</p>
<p>NPR today reported both candidates have assured the finance community they will do nothing to harm free trade. Virtually every political analyst has said the same thing. It’s all Ohio BS.</p>
<p>I’m sure Obama believes that his changes would strengthen free trade because it would make it more fair and profitable for American workers.</p>
<p>ASAP and Hanna -</p>
<p>fyi, I am a Republican who is sick to death of W. I would very much like to vote for a Democrat more or less in protest. I am also a centrist. I’ve always liked McCain so I don’t think he’d be a bad choice for President, but I feel he may be a little too old, and his war advisors are people who don’t like Bush 'cause they think he didn’t go far enough.</p>
<p>I like Hillary probably for the same reason a lot of Democrats don’t like her. She is too close to center and so was Bill. These Democrats hated Bill’s “triangulation” and such. Many Republicans (such as my relatives) don’t like McCain cause they think he’s a traitor to the party. But now they are stuck with him and they are coming around. They will vote for him, griping and complaining the whole way to the booth.</p>
<p>Obama’s voting record has been analyzed professionally as the most far left of all the candidates. Too much for me. I like my candidates as close to center as I can get them. If it’s Hillary vs. McCain I will vote for Hillary but I’ll win either way. I am not on a mission to take back the White House for the Democrats. I’ve always voted the person not the party.</p>
<p>Plus, I thought the German magazine article was good. It made lots of good points. It shows what at least some foreigners think of our election to date. WHat, am I only supposed to read about the minister and not notice or read any of the other stuff the Germans have to say?</p>
<p>Don’t worry about your candidate. I suspect if it’s Hillary your people will do what my family is doing and vote Democrat, griping and complaining the entire time. I doubt any hard core dems will vote for McCain, and the dems are turning out more voters at the polls. Your fears are unfounded as far as I can see.</p>
<p>mercymom-</p>
<p>I see both Hillary and Obama as pretty moderate Democrats. (But I’m old! Liberals are Kucinich and Feingold. Obama and Clinton are mere shadows of liberalism, imo ;))Clinton’s and Obama’s policies are amazingly close. As Obama pointed out in the debate, these groups who analyze votes and come up with who is more liberal and conservative do not always think the way you or I might in making that determination.
I’d rather listen to what they say and look at their careers to get a feeling for what they actually believe. And we all know that only a portion of what they hope to accomplish will ever actually get done- so we may want to go with the one who seems like they might accomplish more. For some, that’s Clinton, for others, Obama. Both are good people.</p>
<p>“Obama’s voting record has been analyzed professionally as the most far left of all the candidates.”</p>
<p>He’s voted for all of two years, during most of which the Republicans controlled the Senate. His position are that of a rightwing Democrat, similar to Hillary’s, on the issues, and he thinks he can get Republicans to work with him on most issue, a bad sign. Of the past 16 years, whenever there has been bipartisanship, it has been a disaster for the nation.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>partisanship has been worse.</p>
<p>WHEN? Bipartisanship gave us NAFTA, WTO, and so-called “free trade” (and hence global warming), federal crack cocaine sentences up to 100 times that for powder (hence eliminating voting rights for 14% of Black males), genocide in Iraq, corporate tax cuts and capital gains giveaways to the rich, an invasion and aggressive, hostile occupation of Iraq, the list goes on.</p>
<p>Bipartisanship is a recipe for disaster.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, Obama is promoting a somewhat different view of “bipartisanship” than the Clintons/DLC. He is not meeting people from the other side in the middle. He is finding common ground with others, expressing support for some of their positions, then bringing them to his side on other positions. From the Wall Street Journal:</p>
<hr>
<p>His rhetorical gimmick is simple. When he addresses a contentious issue, Mr. Obama almost always begins his answer with a respectful nod in the direction of the view he is rejecting – a line or two that suggests he understands or perhaps even sympathizes with the concerns of a conservative.</p>
<p>At Cornell College on Dec. 5, for example, a student asked Mr. Obama how his administration would view the Second Amendment. He replied: “There’s a Supreme Court case that’s going to be decided fairly soon about what the Second Amendment means. I taught Constitutional Law for 10 years, so I’ve got my opinion. And my opinion is that the Second Amendment is probably – it is an individual right and not just a right of the militia. That’s what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that’s a fair reading of the text of the Constitution. And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families.”</p>
<p>Then came the pivot:</p>
<p>“Like all rights, though, they are constrained and bound by the needs of the community . . . So when I look at Chicago and 34 Chicago public school students gunned down in a single school year, then I don’t think the Second Amendment prohibits us from taking action and making sure that, for example, ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out – what are you doing?”</p>
<p>In conclusion:</p>
<p>“There is a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected that is not mutually exclusive with making sure that we are shutting down gun traffic that is killing kids on our streets. The argument I have with the NRA is not whether people have the right to bear arms. The problem is they believe any constraint or regulation whatsoever is something that they have to beat back. And I don’t think that’s how most lawful firearms owners think.”</p>
<hr>
<p>[Obama</a> and the Power of Words - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=rss_opinion_main]Obama”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=rss_opinion_main)</p>
<p>This is, of course, very promising in terms of his ability to govern.</p>
<p>I am more and more favorably impressed with Obama the more I learn about him. I donated today for the second time.</p>