Would love opinions on Monday night CNN dem debate

TheDad · July 24, 2007, 7:27pm

It’s difficult to surpass me in loathing of our current so-called president, George Bush. However, I am against impeachment upon strictly pragmatic grounds: it takes 67 votes to convict in the Senate and that ain’t happening. The result of the attempt would be a circus that would divert attention from the issues and take away the heat from Republican Senators and House members from having to be on record in vote after vote in the run-up to next year’s elections.

Now, impeaching “Fredo” Gonzalez might be a different matter. Even a number of the Republicans in the Senate seem disgusted with him and the attempt might be worthwhile.

cheers · July 24, 2007, 7:50pm

Oh yes, if women don’t like a professional woman who rode out of town for her husband’s career and into town on her husband’s coattails–it must be illogical. Good one.

C’mon marite, tell us what you really think about Biden.

epiphany · July 24, 2007, 7:57pm

NYMom, I completely agree with your post 38.

Mini, do you mean Kosovo? (mass murder)

Like ASAP, I also believe that Edwards is the smartest choice against Republicans, but the Dems don’t always act smart with regard to national realities.

anitaw · July 24, 2007, 11:07pm

I would never vote for Edwards. It matters not what he says, it matter what he does and did. I will not vote for a personal injury lawyer. I will not vote for a man who puts his candidacy above the rights of those children to have round the clock access to their mother in what could be the last 18 months of her life. Who cares what he says.

mini · July 24, 2007, 11:25pm

"Mini, do you mean Kosovo? (mass murder)

No, I mean the one million icivilians, including half a million children (more than 8 times the number killed by Idi Amin) during his entire reign), murdered by Bill Clinton through the bombing of wastewater treatment plants, and then refusing to allows shipments of any medical aid, including simple antibiotics, or repair equipment for hospitals or wastewater equipment into Iraq. (I know about the latter personally, because I flagrantly broke U.S. law by raising funds to help the American Friends Service Committee bring a small amount of equipment in.) Madeline Albright then went on national tv and said the deaths of half a million children was a price that “was worth it”. They didn’t even try to cover up their crimes. The idea, apparently, was that genocide (and that’s what it was, the equivalent of killing 12,000,000 U.S. children) would cause the generals to rebel against Saddam Hussein and invite the U.S. in. It made Darfur look like a picnic.

When European governments began to complain about genocide (and some thinking of gearing up a case before the World Court), Clinton brought in George Tenet. Saddam Hussein discovered, and it was confirmed by the U.N. weapons inspectors themselves, that Clinton (through Tenet) had begun to use the weapons inspectors as a front for CIA infiltration. Hussein threw the U.S. operatives out of the country, but, notably, allowed the weapons inspections to continue.

All the weapons inspectors without exception said there was no manufacture of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons going on in Iraq anywhere in the country. In January/February 1998, in order to cover up his crimes, Clinton and Tenet concocted a series of lies which they fed to Carl Levin, Joe Biden, and company about Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) weapons program (which was immediately countered by the weapons inspectors.) Levin, Biden, and company, without any independent verification, began the drumbeat for war. I have previously posted their actual statements.

In December 1998, faced with U.N. weapons inspectors who insisted that there were no biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons programs in the country, Bill Clinton (not Saddam Hussein, but Bill Clinton) kicked the weapons inspectors out of the country and bombed the country with more firepower than in any single use of U.S. air power since Viet Nam. Again, the hope was that the generals would rebel. Again it failed.

But the die was case. Biden, Levin, and company could hardly seriously oppose Bush’s claims regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs when they had so heartily embraced the Clinton/Tenet lies of February 1998. George Tenet is being honest and correct when he says that he used the term “slam dunk” to GWB to indicate how easy it was going to be to sell the weapons story. Saddam Hussein again invited the weapons inspectors in. (It should be noted that the ONLY folks who ever kicked U.N. inspection teams out of Iraq were Bill Clinton and George Bush.)

It is likely, of course, that Hillary knew all of this, which it was why in 2002 it was “unnecessary” for her to read the NIE before voting, and certainly couldn’t apologize for having done so.

epiphany · July 24, 2007, 11:25pm

anita, perhaps she doesn’t want to give round-the-clock access only to her children. She has a very strong & loving marriage. Perhaps this friendship & her partnership with him is as important to her in “her last 18 months” as her relationship with her children. It doesn’t seem to me as if he’s twisting her arm to show up with him.

cheers · July 24, 2007, 11:54pm

Mrs Edwards, a true asset, is going to die in the middle of this campaign. He’s going to look perfectly heartless riding around ina bus while his two tiny children are grieving at home. Could there be a bigger downer for a campaign?

He’s burnt toast. The Gods do not want him to be president in 2008.

jack · July 24, 2007, 11:57pm

anitaw: As to how people vote, or what candidates appeal to people–for whatever reasons-- well, that’s obviously very personal and individual. To each his own in that regard…

However, you should probably go to the trouble to read more about Elizabeth Edwards herself, before you make such wildly ignorant assumptions. In addition, those children are traveling with them; they will be “home-schooled” by her. Your assessment w/regard to her, her involvement in this campaign, and their children is way off-base.

With regard to Edwards’ career as a personal injury lawyer, I never understand why people have such an issue with that. At least whatever money he made, he did it all on his own (didn’t just inherit it). I’m certainly not familiar with all of the cases he defended, but the ones with which I am familiar, I believe those people deserved every red cent he managed to get for them. The last case he took on in 1996 was for a little girl named Valerie Lakey (in the 3rd grade at the time) who sat down on a pool drain (that was missing its cover) in a public swimming pool. Look up that case and the gory details of her injuries, and tell me that this child and her family didn’t deserve the millions they were awarded for those injuries, and for the care she will need for the rest of her life.

He also managed to get some laws changed in the state of NC w/regard to those drain covers in swimming pools. Sadly, I just read about another child this happened to very recently (in the last couple of weeks) in another state. I don’t know if he lived or not.

As far as having money, you may as well get over that. There’s not a presidential candidate on earth who doesn’t have a boatload of money behind him (made off his/her own hard work, or inherited).

As an aside, unless somebody is her oncologist here, I cannot imagine offering up a time-line on how long her life (or anyone’s) might be. Pronouncing god-like predictions on length of life seems presumptious and weird to me. Again, unless you’re her personal oncologist and have inside info the rest of us don’t, that seems to be going a little far.

Alia · July 25, 2007, 12:08am

I think I may have been watching a different debate. I’ve been really skeptical about Hillary Clinton, but I have to say she’s winning me over. She’s smart and quick and really thoughtful, it seems, under pressure. She doesn’t appear cold at all to me, not in the way she addresses others. I love the excitement generated by Obama – he’s going to be a dynamite President one day – and I have thought well of Edwards, although I was not impressed last night by either his demeanor or his answers. But here’s my growing take on Clinton: here’s a woman who’s as sharp as anyone who’s ever run for President. She’s undergone huge public trials and humiliations (some of her own making) – including the health care debacle in the early '90s, her husband’s shenanigans – and rather than slink away, she’s endured and grown. She not only won a Senate seat, but then she went to work with the very people who sought hard to bring her husband’s administration – and her – down. By all accounts, even those of her former Senate critics, she’s done an admirable job in the Senate, working across party lines, etc. That tells me that she can not only push her own views ahead, but that, on some level, she works well with others.

I’ve been pretty leery of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton hold on the White House, but I’ve got to say that the idea that someone like Mrs. Clinton could walk into the White House in 2008 and start running the country from day 1 – hopefully, turning around some of the mess this godawful administration has engendered – is appealing and enough to make me think about putting aside my preconceived notions and rumors I’ve heard to look at her more critically – and, I guess, favorably. She doesn’t answer every question just the way I’d like, but I’m not a single issue voter, and I think she really could reverse some of this mess faster than any other Democratic candidate – save Gore, who’s not, regrettably, actually in the race.

jack · July 25, 2007, 12:17am

Alia: I agree about Clinton. I’m just not sure she can win over enough people across the country; there are an awful lot of folks who really seem to hate her, but I do think she’s very smart and could–as you say–help turn this mess around. Sadly, I also worry that this country still isn’t ready for a woman president. (Look at the vast numbers of people who voted for Bush; it’s scary out there.) Also agree about Gore, and I haven’t yet given up on him stepping in at the 11th hour.

epiphany · July 25, 2007, 12:31am

Alia, I agree with some aspects of your arguments. I do not think that HC would be some disaster for the country, and I have also previously thought about the advantages of a short learning curve in the WH. But I just worry about her “baggage” (her negatives) in a nat’l contest. To me it is more important to put a Dem in there in the near future than any of the current Reps running.

While some people don’t get the (public) vitriol about HC, I similarly don’t get some of the media vitriol about Edwards. His wealth? His good looks? Go figure.

mini · July 25, 2007, 1:24am

“Also agree about Gore, and I haven’t yet given up on him stepping in at the 11th hour.”

From an environmental/global warming perspective, Al Gore was the single most disastrous politician of the 20th Century. No politician was more closely associated with, or contributed more to the current system of so-called “free trade” - through NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc. - whereby manufacturing was shipped to countries and places with the least controls on pollution and global warming, which pushed millions of people around the world off their land and away from agriculture (with millions of Mexicans driven to the United States), where hundreds of millions of acres of forests were cleared to support multinational agrobusinesses, where hundreds of thousands more were virtually enslaved in global textile factories, with water sources for tens of millions around the globe virtually destroyed.

Compared with the environmental record of Al Gore - the real record - George Bush looks like Rachel Carson. I’ve seen it firsthand, up close and personal, and it is not a pretty picture.

What I want in a Presidential candidate is one who is ready, able, and willing to repudiate neo-liberal economics. And I want one who will pledge to take no campaign contributions from health care lobbyists or insurance companies. (I may be waiting a long time.)

poetsheart · July 25, 2007, 3:44am

Mini, the candidate you want does not exist. Probably never will. I think it’s interesting, however, that you believe Edwards “can be trusted”. Though Edwards is my personal choice for the democratic nomination (and I very much like the idea of an Edwards/Obama ticket), I don’t particularly believe he “can be trusted”, as I don’t believe ANY modern era politician can be trusted—at least not implicitly. I believe that they all, to a man (or woman) are only casually acquainted with Integrity, that almost mythical creature among political circles.

As a side note, I’m always amazed by how loudly the crickets can be heard to chirp on any CC forum in which you outline the longterm implications of Bill Clinton’s own Iraq policies and actions (best not to disabuse people of their version of “the truth”, you know). Same with Al Gore’s not-so-green politics during his time in office. Unlike many, who seem to buy into Gore’s carefully constructed “Inconvenient Truth” persona, hook, line and sinker, I would never vote for Gore for President.

Likewise, there’s not a single Republican candidate among those currently in the race, that I would be inclined to support. So if it came down to good old Al and the GOP’s front runner, I’d just have to sit this election out. There’s not a clothes pin on earth strong enough to pinch my nose against the stench of such a choice in the voting booth.

interesteddad · July 25, 2007, 5:13am

Epiphany:

To answer your question about Clinton marketing to women, take a look at the “internals” in the national polling. Her support among women is breathtaking. She dominates in every group of women voters including Af Am and Hispanic by significant margins. The only group she doesn’t dominate is suburban college educated white women, most of whom are Republicans anyway. She is incredibly strong with traditional Democratic consituency blue-collar women and with young women across the board.

Her polling numbers among women are so strong that it makes it very difficult for any of the other Democratic candidates. Why do you think we are seeing so much Michele Obama and Elizabeth Edwards? Women make up between 55% and 60% of the Democratic primary voters.

The Clinton campaign’s core base of support is women voters. That’s why you see the campaign going out of their way to engineer major New York Times feature stories on the women on her staff. This is a campaign that is hitting on all cylinders.

On the women thing, I’ll leave you with this. An TV ad that Clinton’s advertising guy did for Eleanor’s Legacy – the get out the women’s vote non-profit 527 that Clinton founded in New York. A little hint of things to come, I’m sure:

<a href=“http://www.nywomenvote.org/[/url]”>http://www.nywomenvote.org/</a>

interesteddad · July 25, 2007, 7:22am

To give you an example of the gender split in Clinton’s support, take a look at this survey that Survey USA did Monday night following the Democratic debate. This is a panel of 717 voters nationwide from an initial random sample who agreed to watch the entire debate and complete the poll afterwards. It’s not a representative sample of the national electorate, but it is a large enough sample to provide a snapshot.

<a href=“http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=64f6e1dd-d718-4f17-b6b9-ea197e7b1111[/url]”>SurveyUSA News Poll #12393;

Question 1, which candidate would make the best President? 31% of the males said Clinton; 55% of the females.

Question 2, which candidate won the debate: 29% of the males and 50% of the females said Clinton.

Question 4. Favorability/Unfavorable Males were 57%/26%. Females were 80% favorable; 10% unfavorable.

interesteddad · July 25, 2007, 7:28am

On the issue of favorability, it’s important to understand what drives these numbers. Here are three important considerations that jump out from the polling data:

a) Favorability numbers are driven by a candidate’s own party and partisan supporters.

b) Unfavorability numbers are driven by the opposing party and supporters of other candidates, i.e. each candidate’s partisan opponents.

c) Both numbers increase with name recognition and visibility. A high profile candidate will have higher favorable and unfavorable numbers than a lower profile candidate. Democrats, ask yourselves. Who do you view more unfavorably? Rudy Guiliani or Duncan Hunter?

Here’s data that illustrates the points from the latest CBS News poll conducted in late June. Note that this poll includes options for Favorable, Unfavorable, Undecided, and Haven’t Heard Enough so it is not pushing hard for answers from those who haven’t decided:

AMONG ALL VOTERS:

Clinton: 45% fav, 40% unfav, 15% no opinon
Edwards: 33% fav, 27% unfav, 40% no opinon
Obama: 40% fav, 22% unfav, 38% no opinon
Gore: 34% fav, 40% unfav, 26% no opinon

AMONG DEMOCRATS:

Clinton: 69% fav, 14% unfav, 17% no opinon
Edwards: 48% fav, 12% unfav, 40% no opinon
Obama: 54% fav, 13% unfav, 33% no opinon
Gore: 57% fav, 16% unfav, 27% no opinon

AMONG REPUBLICANS:

Clinton: 12% fav, 76% unfav, 12% no opinon
Edwards: 12% fav, 53% unfav, 35% no opinon
Obama: 21% fav, 38% unfav, 41% no opinon
Gore: 7% fav, 78% unfav, 16% no opinon

It is clear that, when you look at unfavorables for a Democratic candidate, you are really looking at Republican voters. The unfavorables among Democrats are statistically identical and very low across the board. It is also clear that unfavorables among Republicans increase with the candidate’s profile. Clinton and Gore, as icons in the Democratic party and having been through the opposition attack machine, have huge unfavorables. Lesser known candidates who have not been through the smear machine like Obama and Edwards, have lower unfavorables – for now. The Democratic nominee will certainly be an “icon” for Republicans by the day of the general election. Ask John Kerry. No candidate in the race is as high profile as Hillary Clinton. Outside of a former President, there is no active US politician who has been as high profile for as long as Clinton.

It is also clear that if you want to use favorable/unfavorable polling (instead of pure voter preference) in a primary election, you need to look at at Favorables among Democratic voters as the closest measure of actual support, i.e. driving to the polls and casting a primary ballot. Here we see the Democratic field breaking down this way:

Clinton: 69% fav
Obama: 54% fav
Edwards: 48% fav
Gore: 57% fav

Not surprisingly, this is about where the race currently stands among the three announced candidates with Clinton leading Obama and Obama leading Edwards.

Here’s the link to the actual poll data:

<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/062907_campaign.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/062907_campaign.pdf</a>

interesteddad · July 25, 2007, 7:33am

Poetsheart:

Don’t worry. I’m sure that the Republicans will fund Ralph Nadar for another run in 2008, just like they did in 2000. His supporters can help elect a Republican again, just like in 2000.

interesteddad · July 25, 2007, 7:47am

Epiphany:

As far as I know, Hillary’s ad was the only real grassroots YouTube ad. It was selected as the winner in submissions from a contest on her website. The others’ ads appeared to be all produced by the various campaigns.

Trust me, the Clinton campaign was more more than happy to use that “best man for the job is a woman” tag line.

epiphany · July 25, 2007, 8:26am

Interesteddad,
Speaking of attack machines, I don’t think I needed a statistical lecture from anyone regarding favorables & unfavorables, as if I’m too stupid to notice the obvious. Terrific: so I’m an outlier in being NOT FROM THE OPPOSITION but major turned-off by her manipulative marketing of “feminism.” (Which I think it is, and which I think should be irrelevant to competency) I’m glad that you’re informing me that I should have aligned with the statistical research & complied with those predictions to dutifully appreciate the (gag) “grass-roots” nature of the video. This is really what you’re saying. You’re essentially telling me that my reaction is not authentic because it does not fall within the statistical predictions. (Or that being among the 14% is somehow meaningless.)

Let me tell you one reason that a high Unfavorable among one major party is a problem for me. It’s a problem because leaders are more effective when they have greater consensus and trust and, yes, likeability, among the loyalists and among the opposition. Another poster mentioned the short learning curve that HC would have going in: sure, but that might be counterbalanced by a tremendous dislike & distaste for her among the opposing party, which makes up a good portion of our legislative branch. For a similar reason, I am not enthusiastic about a ‘return’ of Gore. I think we need to move on and move ahead in this country. Yes, to many people the election of a woman would signal a moving forward. But so would someone more youthful & fresh & who possibly has a chance of being less strongly disliked than HC or AG.

I also don’t know how your many ‘charts’ stack up with the Likely Voters stats, because there’s where the rubber meets the road. (Please don’t provide me with volumes of numbers.)

In the past, the conventional political wisdom is often that older voters are the more likely voters, and that the enthusiasm of young voters is therefore of minimal importance. But the truth is, as someone who has worked in political campaigns myself, on the grass-roots level, it’s the local troops that set the fires, so to speak. It’s more important to me to have a standard-bearer that new voters – and that disaffected voters can get excited about, because these are the ones that communicate the messages that “grass-roots videos” do not. That’s one of the many reasons I like Obama. He’s clearly that candidate that both groups I just mentioned get excited about.

I want our nation behind our president, whoever he or she is. Apathy leads to lots of mischief happening in Washington. And I want to draw lots of people into the voting booths – if for no other reason than to reduce the impact of the engineered election corruption which has occurred sporadically and which depends on low voter turnout and slim margins for its success.

1sokkermom · July 25, 2007, 8:33am

From Babar: “It makes me wonder if the media is in cohoots with Democratic machine which seems determined to bring us Hillary as their candidate.”

<pre><code> BINGO !!!
</code></pre>

Would love opinions on Monday night CNN dem debate

CONNECT WITH US