<p>Re post 15: but she’s overdoing it, kluge. You should just watch what happened to that ‘live’ meter on Hillary as CNN showed it after the debate. The research is not being effectively applied, and it’s backfiring, which I could have told them.;)</p>
<p>jack, the problem with waiting another 4 years is that Obama’s freshness (and age) is part of his appeal, and I think he knows that and I can understand why he wants to capitalize on that (and esp. not try to run against an incumbent.)</p>
<p>Okay, I looked at Dodd again. He does have good hair, but he needs to lose some weight and maybe get his neck lifted (or whatever they do with necks like that).</p>
<p>Actually, I think maybe Anderson has the best hair, next to John Edwards of course. ;)</p>
<p>Yeah, I get that about Obama, but to be honest- I think that was part of Edwards’ problem when he initially ran (too fast, too soon). I also think Obama really does not have a lot of substance. I like him, but after I hear him talk, I can never remember what he was he actually said. As an aside, his wife always seems utterly miserable. I get the feeling she wishes he wasn’t doing this-- or something.</p>
<p>^^ and that Edwards video is priceless. This is an example of turning around the irrelevance effectively.</p>
<p>o.k. I’m done with the physical stuff.</p>
<p>Agree about the Edwards video. Smart, and well done.</p>
<p>Really? You think that Michelle Obama is upset he’s running? (“miserable”?) Hmm… Not my take, but I’ve only seen her interviewed a couple of times.</p>
<p>Well, yeah, the times I’ve seen her, she always has this miserable look on her face. And when I saw them interviewed on 60 minutes, or one of those talk shows, I did not think she seemed like a happy camper. She just looked like she’d rather be someplace else. I haven’t seen her lately, so maybe she’s improved in that dept. I do like the idea, though, of an Edwards/Obama ticket. That could be quite something.</p>
<p>weenie: I don’t agree that most of the anti-Hillary women are anti-women or not “feminists” at all. In fact, it’s college-educated, professional women who are having the biggest problem with her, according to polls.</p>
<p>I mentioned her appearance in conjunction with her goal (or so I’ve read) of appearing more “human.” I really think a few wrinkles does that. (Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part, seeing that I’m just two years younger than Hillary. :p)</p>
<p>My heart, like yours, Epiphany, is with Obama. I also would be happy with an Obama/Edwards ticket. I am not anti-feminist at all, but I don’t want Hillary to be our first femal president - I think we need a change, and more of the Clintons isn’t a change. I am glad to hear that polls showed Obama did well. I keep reading that Hillary boosted her standings because of the debate - It makes me wonder if the media is in cohoots with Democratic machine which seems determined to bring us Hillary as their candidate. I don’t believe the majority of people in this country prefer Hillary to Obama and/or Edwards - and not because she’s a woman.</p>
<p>I talked to someone who was at Wellesley with Hillary. She told me H’s former roommates are rooting for her because she would be the first woman president but they did not recall her with great fondness. She’d been rather cold then, as she is now.<br>
Voting for the first woman president does not strike me as a great feminist reason.
My heart’s with Obama, too.</p>
<p>I’m a political junkie, but we don’t have a functioning television at the moment. So I’ve only seen snippets of the debate on the internet. </p>
<p>I haven’t been able to summon much enthusiasm for any of the declared candidates. There are 3 people whom I could whole-heartedly support, and two of them are definitely not running (Howard Dean and Russ Feingold). That leave Al Gore, and I believe that he will get in. </p>
<p>I don’t understand all the vitriol against Hillary. I think she’s a smart and hardworking public servant, but she lacks leadership qualities. I was a very early Obama supporter, when he was one of 7 people running in the Democratic primary in IL (I often follow congressional races in other states, and sometimes contribute, as I did to Obama). I was part of the original “Barack Brigade,” but I’ve become disenchanted and now believe that he lacks substance. I hate Joe Biden.</p>
<p>"I keep reading that Hillary boosted her standings because of the debate - It makes me wonder if the media is in cohoots with Democratic machine which seems determined to bring us Hillary as their candidate. "</p>
<p>babar, you are right on. And that was proved last night. Immediately after the debate, you & I could have predicted that CNN just couldn’t wait to pronounce judgment, which they eagerly did. Someone (I think it was Toobin) said, “Oh, no question: HC was the most presidential. She just takes it away.” Etc. Etc. Thankfully, though, along comes AC to, um, correct the record about that: instant viewer reaction on the graph proved that Obama & Edwards beat Hillary considerably in the viewer-reaction dept. CNN pundits had no response.</p>
<p>“I don’t understand all the vitriol against Hillary.” Is it on this thread? (Don’t think so.)</p>
<p>But I like marite’s comment about feminism being the wrong reason for a presidential vote: the first [whatever]. Vote for her if you like her positions & believe she would be more EFFECTIVE in implementing those positions than others would. Not because she is anatomically “correct.”</p>
<p>“babar, you are right on. And that was proved last night. Immediately after the debate, you & I could have predicted that CNN just couldn’t wait to pronounce judgment, which they eagerly did. Someone (I think it was Toobin) said, “Oh, no question: HC was the most presidential. She just takes it away.” Etc. Etc.”</p>
<p>I’ve noticed that consistently, too. It is not easy to make sense of (it happened in the first debate, too.) Post-debates polls show she finishes third or so, and is pronounced the winner.</p>
<p>Not that I thought she came off badly. (I wouldn’t vote for her anyway - I don’t make it a habit of voting for wives of mass murderers, and I suspect she was part of the February 1998 coverup and war-mongering which sold the war in Iraq four years in advance; but she surely didn’t present herself poorly.)</p>
<p>Biden’s purchase of the Clinton-Tenet Iraq lies in 1998 should disqualify him for anything north of dogcatcher. He has consistently shown extremely poor judgment when it comes to foreign policy, likely the fruit of “his experience.”</p>
<p>Senator Biden:</p>
<p>"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq’s transgressions. [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].</p>
<p>This was five years before the Bush invasion and hostile occupation. There was not one iota of evidence to support his assertions (which were shared by Levin and the other Democrats), and wouldn’t be by the time Clinton kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in December so he could unleash the largest bombing campaign by the United States conducted since Viet Nam.</p>
<p>Actually, I thought it was dumb when Candy Crowley declared that the question submitters were the “true winners.” The self promotion of this event just never ends, she was even on CNN saying the same thing this morning.</p>
<p>Obama looked like he was five years old standing next to those guys and gal. He’s not as good a speaker as I hoped.</p>
<p>Hillary looked unhappy and far too concerned about Obama’s answers, even intimidated. You can say that it didn’t matter that she jumped off the track for a couple of decades to move to Fayetteville for Love, but that decision shows up in her demeanor. Shows what a difference Schumer made in her Senate campaign.</p>
<p>That said, one thing I learned from watching The Apprentice here and there–women can’t win on appearance. Damend if they do and damned if they don’t. It’s extra baggage the men get to skip.</p>
<p>Obama made an effort to zap Hillary but neither could touch the polish of the trial lawyer, Edwards. I don’t know how the voters will handle his wife’s impending death though. That’s the real wild card in his quest.</p>
<p>The sidestepping on the politics of troop withdrawal and Iraq was very disappointing. Dems better pay attention to that scorecard.</p>
<p>Biden is a windbag. I heard him in Boston and what I chiefly remember from his speech is that he loves to hear himself speak.</p>
<p>Reagan was supposed to be good at laying down general policy and leaving it to his advisors to work out the details. HRC is his antithesis, as her role in the health care reform debacle showed. Her command of details is impressive in debates, but I would have to be concerned about her inability to let go of minutiae.</p>
<p>It looks like debates are not Obama’s best platform. He can be incredibly inspirational. He can also give something to very different constituencies, advocating a role for government but preaching self-help at the same time. Much would depend on the kind of people he surrounds himself with, give him advice and flesh out details of his general ideas.</p>
<p>So, my heart’s with Obama, my head is uncommitted.</p>
<p>I do agree that Obama can be inspirational (though not in a debate); but at the end of the day, does he ever say anything of substance? I don’t hear it (or remember it) if he does.</p>
<p>Edwards has actually outlined specifically what he would do about Iraq, mainly hold Bush accountable-- stop funding the war (or put a cap on funding), which would essentially facilitate bringing troops home, with the goal of complete withdrawal in 18 months, at the latest, and leaving no permanent military bases in Iraq. And he doesn’t want to wait until 2009 to do it.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t think Elizabeth is an issue–well, only a positive one; she is very impressive, also a great speaker, and people also find her very inspirational. I do think that people can and do live a [relatively] long time after being diagnosed with her type of cancer. I certainly don’t believe they view this as much of an obstacle. And as they have stated themselves, her cancer just pales in comparison to the death of their son. By all accounts, they are very strong individuals.</p>
<p>Bush is running this country dry. He’s been the biggest disaster this country has ever seen. Personally, I think we need to impeach both Cheney and Bush. Cheney first, of course. Impeaching them would, at the very least, also give us some credibility around the world.</p>
<p>epiphany, No, there is no vitriol against Hillary on this thread. I was thinking generally, but I should have made that clear.</p>
<p>babar, I think it’s the Republicans who are pushing Hillary as the nominee. They believe that she would be easy to beat. They are the ones with CNN, etc., in their pockets.</p>
<p>I’ve always liked Edwards. He seems both tough and compassionate. He’s smart, articulate, committed, and seems to understand what the country needs now to get back on track. I think he would not only make the best President of those who have put their hat in the ring, but would have the best chance of beating the GOP candidate, which is in itself, reason to support his nomination.
I didn’t see the debate. It seems way to early, still. Now a debate about impeachment…that I’d watch, jack. I’m with you.</p>
<p>I’m with you, too, Jack, on impeachment.</p>