<p>I thought the AFL-CIO debate last night said it all: the biggest applause and excitement came after Obama and, most especially, Kucinich, spoke. There was often deathly silence after Hillary’s pronouncements. (Not sure whether union workers in Soldier Field–mostly white guys and white women by the looks of it–are considered neo-loons or not.)</p>
<p>Didn’t matter–Chris and Keith declared Hillary the winner by far of the debate anyway.</p>
<p>Kucinich was throwing red meat to the union rank and file. Kind of like Tancredo at an NRA convention calling for the bombing of holy sites in Mecca or shooting illegal Mexicans crossing the border.</p>
<p>Obama. Chicago. Doh! Obama’s house is five miles from Soldier Field in the neighborhood around University of Chicago.</p>
<p>from post 51</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>
<p>Excellent information, succinctly put, with conclusion well drawn.</p>
<p>Check it. We will find ourselves in the same poilitical situation if clinton is elected. The only difference is that we will finally blame the democrats, not the republicans. (I am somewhat a democrat), but I realize its the democrats fault that we went to war and that we havent changed anything in America. </p>
<p>Clinton will be democratic candidate and then president because republicans like her as well. She will say that we need universal health care- doctors will be payed much less while the drug companies will prosper (at least the drug companies that support her). She makes me sick. If we are to elect a real president, we need someone who will actually make change. The only candidate that I see who is capable of change (because of their belief system and the fact that they dont need to cater to their campaign financers) is Edwards.</p>
<p>Again, this makes me sick that the American people are always misinformed, leaning to one way or another because of the damn press. I love Gravel, but realize that he has no power to change anything, because the Senate would hate him. Fortunately for us, we have an old crabby gnome like Gravel to tell us the truths of America and the other candidates. If we are to truly take part in democracy, we must inform ourselves. Clinton is strikingly similar to Bush, especially in the similar campaigns. Obama is decent, but he still has ties to HUGE business, which he will have to cater to during his president. </p>
<p>We as a nation, will once again face turmoil with the current candidates. Granted, it will be less hardship than Bush’s reign, but it will be turmoil nonetheless. I dont care who you vote for, just make sure it is an educated decision.</p>
<p>By the way. Can someone please tell me why they would vote for Hillary Clinton in the first place. It is beyond my understanding. Im like an athiest trying to understand God. I dont see why Clinton is winning, so please inform me.</p>
<p>I agree with post 61, regarding the media deliberately ignoring the obvious. Whether the local aspects of affiliation/loyalty determined live crowd response, I don’t know. But to willy-nilly ignore the audience not only stretches credibility, I actually find it arrogant. The audience, whether locally biased or not, represented at least a segment of middle America. Why do the Democrats, or the party regulars, never understand that they need to appeal to middle America to win a national election? Now, I’m sure that interesteddad will come up immediately here with a poll somehow nullifying any validity to the audience responses last night.</p>
<p>The only thing the media got right was noting the emotional high point of the evening: the speech from the disabled retiree.</p>
<p>The problem with the Hillary campaign is that they may not know where she is from. In reality she may not have any home field advantage because she has no home field. :rolleyes: </p>
<p>Is it New York, Arkansas, Washington D.C., anwhere in the South (the southern drawl thing), Boston (because of college) ???</p>
<p>(It may work for baseball fans, but not so sure about presidential candidates.
When in Boston you are a Red Sox fan, but when visiting New York, the Yankees rule.)</p>
<p>I know, I’D, the entire country is her home and everyone loves her. They just may not know it yet.</p>
<p>Who is discounting the AFL-CIO members in attendance at Soldier Field? Their concerns are largely intertwined with the issues emphasized by Democratic candidates: jobs, health care, education, etc.</p>
<p>I’m merely pointing out that you would get somewhat different partisan responses at a gathering of AFL-CIO members drawn from Chicago than you would if the same forum were held at, for example, Yankee Stadium in New York City drawn from a different candidate’s hometown base. </p>
<p>In fact, that is why the AFL-CIO isn’t endorsing a candidate – along with the fact that they are still reeling from endorsing Dean a month before the Iowa caucus last time around. </p>
<p>The Chicago locals are heavily Obama oriented. The New York locals, heavily Clinton oriented. The decision today of the national AFL-CIO not to endorse opens the door for locals to announce their endorsements.</p>
<p>When I say that Kuchinich was chucking morsels of red-meat pandering at the crowd, let me give you an example. He is touting single-payer government health care for all. </p>
<p>While there is support for that among liberal audiences, it is clearly a proposal that is not going to happen politically. So, in effect, he is offering a policy proposal that is guaranteed to be a total non-starter. I double he could get 15 votes in the Senate, let alone the 60 votes that would be required.</p>
<p>So, yeah, the crowd can jump up and down and hoot and holler, but the bottom line on Kuchinich’s policy position is: NO ADDITIONAL COVERAGE FOR UNINSURED AMERICANS.</p>
<p>I, personally, have scorn for that kind of pandering, even in cases where I agree with the position being espoused. I prefer candidates who talk to me about real-world solutions to real-world problems.</p>
<p>The irony is that Chicago should be Hillary’s HOME FIELD. That is where she was born and spent much of her childhood! So much for Home field advantage. :o</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell that to the New York unions.</p>
<p>This really isn’t an esoteric concept. Politics has always given a home-town boost to the candidate from the local district. Gephardt winning the Iowa caucus. Tsongas winnning the New Hampshire primary. This stuff is as old as the hills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not when one of the candidates was the statehouse rep for southside Chicago for eight years and has now been the US Senator from Illinois for two and half years.</p>
<p>How many days did she actually LIVE in New York? Just curious.</p>
<p>Are some Republicans really interested in voting for Hillary or are they backing her knowing the high negatives that would benefit their nominee in the general election?</p>
<p>“I, personally have scorn for that kind of pandering, even in cases where I agree with the position being espoused. I prefer candidates who talk to me about real-world solutions to real-world problems.”</p>
<p>Hillary’s kind of obvious pandering is okay, then? Her real-world solutions to real-world problems all seem to involve inventing out of thin air new government programs and entitlements costing vast amounts of money, but, to quote–your mileage may differ. </p>
<p>You remind me of a man in the first throes of love (my younger son this summer, actually): the faults the rest of us can so easily see, he is blind to.</p>
<p>“The New York locals, heavily Clinton oriented.”</p>
<p>I agree that in New York, Bill Clinton was a very popular President. My guess is that Mr. Clinton will be spending a lot of time in NY campaigning for his (ummm)…wife.</p>
<p>The question is, who will the crowd be cheering for? ;)</p>
<p>Talk about rock star popularity and star power, how could New York not like Bill Clinton?
As recently as October 2005, “NEW YORK - Bill Clinton is teaming with SpongeBob SquarePants and Dora the Explorer in a campaign to nudge kids to eat healthy foods and to get up off the couch and move, the former president and Nickelodeon television executives announced Thursday.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As you may know, Clinton is campaigning on a platform of fiscal responsibility, deficit reduction, and the same pay-as-you-go approach to new spending that the first Clinton administration used (with Congress) to balance the federal budget and hand over large surpluses to George W. Bush.</p>
<p>That’s why the first step of her three-stage rollout of health care reform was exclusively focused on cost-reductions in the current system. Politically, she knows that you can’t start with universal coverage and promise to pay for it with future actions. You have to start with the cost side in order to gain political concensus to expand coverage.</p>
<p>That’s why the expansion of the SCHIP program by the Democratic Congress last week included a 50 cent per pack increase in cigarette taxes. The revenue offsets the higher cost of the program and/or drives down system-wide health care cost if people stop smoking.</p>
<p>Ok, i-dad: I can’t keep a straight face anymore. </p>
<p>Bill Clinton ran as a centrist (one of the reasons I voted for him) and governed from the left (with his wife’s influence). One of the reasons we got a Republican congress in the mid-term elections.</p>
<p>Hillary is attempting to run from the center (fooling few people) and if there is anyone out there who thinks she will govern from the center, I have a little bridge to sell you.</p>
<p>Everyone knows that ideologically and philosophically, Hillary is and always has been to the left of Bill. She is a fraud, pure and simple.</p>
<p>Actually, I think Hillary is running a bit to the right of Bill.</p>
<p>Here’s the deal with the Clinton campaign strategy. They campaign basically as technocrats. Identify issues of concern to a broad base of Americans, and offer incremental, largely achievable, policies to move towards those objectives. Basically, it’s the same approach that well run businesses employ. The corollary is to also identify issues where there is unresolvable division in the country and stay away from those. It’s the Mark Penn strategy.</p>
<p>If you are looking for an ideologue candidate, the Clintons are not for you.</p>
<p>How can you say Bill Clinton governed from the left? Three of his major legislative accomplishments were free trade agreements (NAFTA), welfare reform, and a hugely-free market Telecommunications Act. He left office with a balanced budget.</p>
<p>Post 73 raises an important question.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0833230620070808[/url]”>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0833230620070808</a></p>
<p>Clinton’s campaign put together a great prepared speech for her to present today in NH. The only thing they failed to mention, is how will they pay for this?</p>
<p>Opportunistic? You be the judge.</p>
<p>Is this going to be funded through a reduction in military spending? Come on, Hillary, please say it…</p>