opinions on Monday night CNN dem debate (reprise)

Parent Cafe
41

<p>hereshoping: Offhand, I’d say you’re wrong. She is smart, capable, and experienced-- qualities we have yet to see in our current president. Oh, and she’s articulate, another quality never before seen in Dubya. The problem we have in this country (one of them) is that people voted for Dubya, because he looked and acted like somebody with whom they could sit down, kick back their heels, and have a beer. He comes across like a good ole boy that doesn’t seem much smarter than your average neighbor (and probably isn’t). For some unknown reason, people seem to appreciate and feel comfortable with that. Once again, I find that attitude both bizarre and scary.</p>

<p>I personally don’t have to <em>like</em> the president who runs this country, as long as he or she is smart, capable, thoughtful, experienced, and not interested in continuing to bleed this country dry, settling old scores (seeking revenge), nor in removing any more of our rights. I can think of some other stuff, too, but I could care less if I find the person “likeable,” and I’d certainly prefer him/her to be smarter than I am.</p>

42

<p>Good pedigree his story is not correct about Romney and Nixon in 1968.</p>

43

<p>I think the disaster that is the Bush Presidency will have people prepared to take risks in the next election, even many traditional GOP voters, whom I suspect are feeling adrift in a sea of uninspiring candidates. But, the supposed “Christian Right”, the bedrock upon whom the party has reputedly counted in recent years to turn out the vote, may feel so demoralized as to sit this one out, especially if the GOP nominee has a record of standing diametrically opposed to their hot button issues. </p>

<p>Being an Independent voter, whose hot button issues are National Security, The Economy, Energy Independence and National Infrastructure (Air Traffic Control, roads and bridges, power plants, food and water safety, etc) I plan to vote for whoever looks strongest in those categories, understanding that there’s no such thing as a “perfect candidate”. </p>

<p>I have serious misgivings concerning Hillary Clinton, not necessarily viewing the “two-fer” as a positive thing. But I would vote for her over any of those in the current GOP lineup. Sadly, I think it’s true that Barack Obama is simply too unseasoned (and yes, too naive) to qualify for the job at this critical juncture in our nation’s history. And even if he were the most insightful, most seasoned, most “man with a viable plan” candidate in this election, I don’t think America would elect a black man to the office of President—we’ve just not come that far yet. Vice President, maybe. But President? Nah…</p>

<p>I would consider any of these combinations: Edwards/Obama. Clinton/Obama. Edwards/Clinton. Clinton/Edwards. But the election is still more than a year away. A lot could change in that time. Were we to experience another 9/11 level of terrorist attack between now and the election, I suspect the number one priority for most Americans would be a candidate they feel capable of responding in a RATIONAL, measured and decisive manner, and one most capable of safeguarding us against future attacks.</p>

44

<p>poetsheart: I agree with just about every point you’ve made above. Glad to hear, too, that you think the Christian Right might sit this one out. That would sure be fine with me.</p>

45

<p>Even if the “Christian Right” didn’t sit this one out, all it would take to make their vote practically of none-effect would be for enough here-to-fore apathetic voters to show up at the polls for a change. I suspect that Bush has provided that rare impetus.</p>

46

<p>I suspect that previously apathetic country club Republicans will come out in droves to vote for Giuliani in order to defeat Hillary, thereby replacing any lost evangelicals.</p>

47

<p>I suspect that previously apathetic country club Republicans will come out in droves to vote for Giuliani in order to defeat Hillary, thereby replacing any lost evangelic</p>

<p>not going to happen… see post 36 Giuliani is losing them already…Makes no differance Giuliani is not going to be the R nominee anyway…</p>

48

<p>The problem is that Karl Rove built the Republican get-out-the-vote operation, message machine, and grassroots fundraising structure based on the evangelical churches.</p>

<p>If they go with a candidate unacceptable to the evangelical churches, that whole apparatus sits on its hands. Extraordinary get out the vote operations saved George W’s bacon in two elections.</p>

49

<p>1Sokkermom – Just a slight correction. Guiliani and wife #3 did attend his daughter’s hs graduation but did not sit with the rest of the family and left before the end without speaking to his daughter. Frankly, I think that’s worse than no showing up at all. There was a little kerfluffle today when Miss Guiliani’s facebook site seemed to show support for Barak Obama but I understand that has now been taken down. </p>

<p>As for the evangelicals, they have lost a lot of leadership this year (Hasta la Vista, Falwell). Furthermore, many church leaders, including the one who is replacing Ted Haggard, are beginning to pursue other agendas, like environmentalism. Perhaps after 6 yrs of an avowedly pro-life president, a compliant Congress, and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court but <em>still</em> no overturn of Roe, their patience has worn thin. Personally, I expect the next twenty years to see the rise of a Bible-based political party. Robertson’s mistake of running with Republicans will not be repeated. All bets are off, however, if Brownback and/or Huckabee make it to the Convention.</p>

50

<p>“If they go with a candidate unacceptable to the evangelical churches, that whole apparatus sits on its hands. Extraordinary get out the vote operations saved George W’s bacon in two elections.”</p>

<p>Yep. That’s the Republicans’ main problem. They’ve got no one capable of appeasing the religious right, their most reliable voting block. And there are plenty of voters who have sometimes voted for Republican candidates, but who don’t by any means drink the Kool Aid— people who don’t strongly identify with a particular party, but rather would vote for a candidate of either party, hoping against hope that that somebody will put America first for a change.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, the problem the Republicans have, according to some research from a Republican pollster released last month is that the party is 93% white, 48% suburban, 66% households with no children under 18, heavily concentrated in the South, and signficantly more self-identified “conservative” than it was in 1997. In other words, Rove’s strategy worked to perfection. The problem is that the party is positioned on a 21st century dead end street demographically.</p>

52

<p>“The problem is that the party is positioned on a 21st century dead end street demographically.”—that is, until voters become disillusioned by a decade of Democratic party domination. Then the Republicans will be just where they need to be in order to regain power, because (say it with me now) “Politics is cyclical!”</p>

53

<p>Of course. But, it will be a different Republican party, just like today’s party is very different than the Republican Party of the Nixon era (putting aside the Watergate comparisons).</p>

<p>We are seeing the last gasp of the angry old white dudes.</p>

54

<p>Wait a minute… from what I’ve read about the Kos thing in Chicago last weekend it was full of nothing but …drum roll please…angry old white dudes.</p>

<p>Those angry old white dudes sure do get around.</p>

<p>Snicker, snicker…I know…those angry old white dudes in the Windy City last weekend are different.</p>

<p>They are the good old angry white dudes.</p>

<p>The other white dudes are the bad ones.</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>Not in my book. Fortunately, those Kossacks don’t have much to do with the mainstream Democratic Party. By and large, they are Nadarites. </p>

<p>The mainstream Democrats are much more centrist than that, pro-business, strong on national security, etc. The Democratic front-runner consistently polls in the single digits on DailyKos, well behind Obama, and darling of the KOS crowd, pseudo-populist crusader, John Edwards.</p>

56

<p>They’re the mainstream of the Democrat party. If they were not, why on Earth would every one of your candidates attend the old white dudes convention?</p>

<p>Kos has taken over your party. You know it as do all of those running for President in your party. You may know (believe) that they all love Nader. It doesn’t matter. </p>

<p>This is an albatross.</p>

<p>Good luck…not really!</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>Hogwash. If they had a significant impact on the Democratic electorate, the polls would read as they do on the Daily KOS blog:</p>

<p>Edwards: 36%
Obama: 22%
Clinton: 9%</p>

<p>As you know, the polls of actual Democratic voters are the exact inverse of that. Or consider that the KOSsacks hate Bill Clinton. Among Democrats as a whole, he enjoys something like 92% favorables. Hillary is currently at 84% favorable among Democrats in general.</p>

<p>The reasons for attending vary from candidate to candidate.</p>

<p>Edwards made a determination over the 4th of July that his campaign was dead in the water. He hired a couple of anti-corporate organizers to run his campaign and took a hard left turn. He’s throwing red-meat to the extremist wing of the party. Think of him as the Democratic Tom Tancredo.</p>

<p>Obama is running a rockstar campaign, trying to be the “movement” candidate who gets all the college kids fired up. Think Howard Dean or any number of “movement” Democrats who have risen like meteor and lost the nomination to a mainstream Democrat.</p>

<p>Clinton’s appearance (and her spokesman’s visit to the Bill O’Reily show to defend the KOS blog) is one of the most masterful pieces of political gamesmanship I’ve ever seen because she is simultaneously accomplishing two diametrically opposed objectives:</p>

<p>a) She doesn’t need the votes of the KOSsacks, but she needs to keep them in the fold for the general election because they are enthusiastic Democratic field workers and because she needs to keep Ralph Nader (or some other wacko) on the bench. So, she is earning their respect despite the fact that she is viewed as a conservative Republican by that crowd. BTW, she accomplished that. The sentiment was “I can’t support her in the primaries because she’s way too pro-business, but she impressed me with her knowledge and command. If she’s the nominee, I can get behind her…” That was her goal. Begrudging respect. I can live with her as the nominee and hold signs at the polling places.</p>

<p>b) She wanted to get boo’d for something. As a general election strategy, it is beneficial for her to not be embraced by the fringe left wing of the Democratic Party. Think Sister Souljah.</p>

<p>Forget whether you would vote for her or not, just sit back and enjoy the way her campaign executes. It is like watching a Super Bowl caliber football team. I’ve seen incumbent campaigns this slick. But, never a campaign operating at that level six months before the first primary.</p>

58

<p>“I’ve seen incumbent campaigns this slick. But, never a campaign operating at that level six months before the first primary.”</p>

<p>Slick. Great. Just what the country needs. Slick.
I could deal with slick Willy, but not slick Hilly. :(</p>

<p>When I hear the word slick, I think of slime and deception. I may actually agree with this representation of Hillary’s campaign. Slick indeed. :o</p>

<p>A definition of slick from dictionary: " Superficially attractive or plausible but lacking depth or soundness."</p>

59

<p>Slick also means movement with little or no friction…which of course is a good thing.</p>

60

<p>As a white, non-male and mildly ticked off but not angry Kossack…though Gonzo-gate makes me more than ticked…there’s actually a discussion going on over there now about the ‘whitest crowd I’ve ever been in’ story in the Boston Globe (picked up by others including the Wash Post) re: Yearly Kos convention. As people at Kos have pointed out, the ones with the money and the time to go to the convention were mostly older men and women who were white. The younger ones and those of color either didn’t have the disposable income or couldn’t take time off, or couldn’t arrange child care. So naturally the demo at the convention is going to be different from the run-of-the-mill Kossack. That’s just economics in America. </p>

<p>And considering the make-up of the Republican field for the prez nom, I don’t think Republicans should be throwing any bricks about old angry white dudes. Which of those gents represent <em>any</em> other demographic?</p>