Would love opinions on Monday night CNN dem debate

<p>epiphany, I am not supporting Hillary for president, but I do want to correct this: </p>

<p>“tremendous dislike & distaste for her among the opposing party, which makes up a good portion of our legislative branch”</p>

<p>This is just not true. Hillary is respected and very well liked by Republican senators. Look at her record. She has worked on legislation with almost everyone, including the odious Rick Santorum. I read somewhere that after Republican senators send out fund-raising letters that raise the spectre of a HC presidency, they joke with her about it, as in: “Sorry, Hill, but if we use your name we raise so much money!”</p>

<p>Edwards didn’t like her outfit either. At least he was honest. A good quality in a candidate. ;)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/FEATURES03/707250359[/url]”>http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/FEATURES03/707250359&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, Clinton is known in Senate as someone who does successfully work across the aisle. Much of the legislation she has sponsored over 7 years in the Senate has been co-sponsored with Republican Senators.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Karl Rove said that the best get out the vote effort in the United States in 2000, was Clinton’s NY Senate race…her first ever campaign. She has the most formidable campaign organization in the country right now, Democratic or Republican. I’m confident that the Democrats will turn out the vote in 2008, and it will be driven by women voters.</p>

<p>BTW, I’m a big fan of Obama. Fresh out of the Illinois statehouse, he’s not ready to be President, but he’s going to make an unbelievable candidate in 2016 against Jeb Bush when Obama’s in his early 50s with 10 years of big league experience.</p>

<p>Won’t JEB! be too old by then?</p>

<p>“She has the most formidable campaign organization in the country right now, Democratic or Republican.”</p>

<p>That may be true. However, that alone does not make her the most qualified candidate for President. :eek:</p>

<p>^^ even more cynically, I sometimes wonder if the established media is in cohoots with the groups providing the ‘predictive’ statitistics that were provided above.</p>

<p>Also, people actually foreshorten this serial legacy business in D.C. Here’s what it really would look like, if she were elected:</p>

<p>Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-(&maybe) Clinton.</p>

<p>Enough already!</p>

<p>It tends to be in local elections, that when there’s a great deal of controversy or mixed feelings about long-standing incumbents, that even those associated with those incumbents – when they run – are defeated roundly. This happened in one of our elections AGAINST ALL POLLING PREDICTIONS. Looking at individual candidates, and their negatives & positives, don’t always tell the story, because sometimes voters bring other considerations into that voting booth, considerations that haven’t been asked, haven’t been polled, & factors voters aren’t likely to be conscious of, even, when asked.</p>

<p>interesteddad, why do you always bring up irrelevancies? New York State is not the nation. I’m talking about a unifying figure for the whole country. You’re thinking like an old person when you’re talking about obama waiting until 2016.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe. But, I don’t think he’ll want any part of a race against President Clinton in 2012.</p>

<p>All I can say is, thank god his brother screwed it up so badly or we’d really have dynasty issues to complain about!</p>

<p>President Clinton? I thought Bill couldn’t run again? ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m just being realistic. He’s not going to run against an incumbent President from his own party in 2012. Heck, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he’ll be the incumbent Vice President.</p>

<p>I do have to give Obama credit for jumping in with both feet. In my several decades of watching politics, he is the first Presidential candidate I’ve ever seen run TV ads in Iowa touting his experience as a state legislator! He’s doing great with virtually no record to run on.</p>

<p>“I’m confident that the Democrats will turn out the vote in 2008, and it will be driven by women voters.”</p>

<p>Well this woman will not be among them. If she’s the candidate, I’ll probably vote for her, unenthusiastically.</p>

<p>Another thing I do not understand is her strong draw among the educated. I find her style <em>quite</em> condescending. She speaks very slowly as if my IQ is sub-par. What’s suspect to me is that she does this much less around groups that she already knows are highly educated, but she saves the v-e-r-y- s-l-o-w-w-w- s-p-e-a-k-i-n-g m-a-n-n-e-r-i-s-m-s for the general public. I don’t whether she assumes there’s an auditory processing problem, that there’s an IQ deficiency, or that most of the general population are English Language Learners. No, it’s not enough to “hate” her, it’s just incredibly annoying.</p>

<p>interesteddad: I agree that Obama might make a great candidate in the future. I really think he should have waited. Actually, my big fear was that Jeb Bush would run <em>this</em> year. People are so sick of the Bush family at this point, though, he didn’t stand a chance.</p>

<p>sokkermom: That’s very funny. I guess when asked what you “dislike” about a candidate, commenting on their clothing must have seemed like the most benign comment he could make, but I think it was a bad choice. Still . . . that jacket must have been pretty bright in real life, standing there next to it. ;)</p>

<p>I basically want a competent, thoughtful, and smart Democrat up there running-- one who can win with no problem. And wouldn’t it be great to have someone in the White House who was smarter than the average Joe walking down the street? (One who actually is competent, thoughtful, and smart?) This country can’t afford (literally or figuratively) to have another Republican in the White House. My 2 cents.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No. If you want to legitimately discount polling, the best knock is to point out that polling only captures a snapshot of one moment in time, while political races are dynamic and subject to change. Of course, for primary races, you really have to look state by state. The key first batch includes Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida.</p>

<p>On slow talking:</p>

<p>I suspect that Clinton speaks slowly so that her brain can keep up and avoid making big mistakes like committing to a Presidential Summit with Fidel Castro or forgeting “retaliation” against another 9/11 attack. Or the worst blunder of the campaign so far: Fred Thompson comparing Cuban refugees to terrorists with suitcase nukes. I guess ol’ Fred won’t have to worry about driving that old red pickup truck to campaign in Florida!</p>

<p>"polling only captures a snapshot of one moment in time, while political races are dynamic and subject to change. "</p>

<p>And that was exactly my point about a recent local election I cited as an example. Not only are the races dynamic, people are, too. An opinion-moment might be captured, but that may not accurately reflect the complex features that ultimately decide the voting-moment.</p>

<p>For example, it’s often been noticed that controversial figures, especially, fall into this less-predictive category. Voters will say one thing about them when questioned, but will vote differently. A similar phenomenon is noticed about exit-polling, for such candidates. The more controversial a figure, the less I have faith in polls about them.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Clinton went all bright colors all the time about a month or two ago. She’s not made a public appearance since at least the Hill and Bill Show 4th of July weekend in anything but bright colors: red, orange, pink, yellow, neon blue, etc. Mark Penn must have polled her suit colors.</p>

<p>The exit polling problems are usually related to sample problems. The biggy was when they released exit poll data too early in the day, when women were over-represented in the polling sample.</p>

<p>My examples do not include problems with female sample numbers. Again, the more controversial a figure, the less accurate the exit polls.</p>

<p>In any case, my only consolation in voting for HC is that she would have Bill as her advisor. That does not overrride my weariness with those whole dynasty thing in D.C. stretching back to the '80’s.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow. I must be posting on the wrong forum. :p</p>

<p>I noticed those bright colors, btw. They probably think they make her appealing to the red states (you know, all those bumpkins). Her outfit at her appearance with Bill in Iowa was God-awful.</p>

<p>The following should always be a consideration in any discussion of the politics of the upcoming presidential year……</p>

<p>Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In Modern Era, Only Nixon Scored Worse, And Only Truman Was Down for So Long
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03
President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.
The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush’s job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only once has a president exceeded that level of public animosity – and that was Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before he resigned.
The historic depth of Bush’s public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters – at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency.
Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president’s predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff.
But the president’s unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush’s principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills.
The president’s low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush’s policies in a variety of areas. “It isn’t just the Iraq war,” said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. “It’s everything.”
Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. “You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy,” said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. “Not both.”
Yet Bush’s political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind – Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation’s survival.
“It’s astonishing,” said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter’s pollster. “It’s hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy’s not that bad – for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it’s not Vietnam; we’re not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don’t have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he’s irrelevant to that. I think they’ve basically given up on him.”
That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell’s boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans “strongly” disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as “angry.”
“A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh,” said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. “That has a tendency to reinforce people’s opinions and harden people’s opinions.”
Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam had the disapproval of 52 percent of the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Gerald R. Ford never had disapproval ratings reach 50 percent.
Nixon remains the most unpopular modern president, though barely. His disapproval rating reached 66 percent on Aug. 5, 1974, four days before he resigned amid Watergate. Harry S. Truman reached Bush’s current disapproval rating of 65 percent in February 1952 amid the unpopular Korean War. George H.W. Bush came close before losing his bid for reelection in 1992, with 64 percent disapproval.
The current president, though, has endured bad numbers longer than Nixon or his father did and longer than anyone other than Truman. His disapproval rating has topped 50 percent for more than two years. And though Truman hit 65 percent once, Bush has hit that high three times in the past 14 months.
Bush advisers clutch at Truman as if he were a political life preserver. If Bush has experienced a similar collapse in public support while in office, they hope he will enjoy the same post-presidential reassessment that has made Truman look far better today than in his time. A 2004 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that 58 percent of Americans viewed Truman favorably.
And the president’s team takes solace in the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem, too. More than half disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular, in the latest Post-ABC survey, though their ratings were still better than Bush’s.
The deep antipathy to Bush has fueled grass-roots support for impeachment. Democrats have resolved not to do that, remembering the division when a Republican Congress impeached Bill Clinton in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. His public support, though, never fell as far as Bush’s. Clinton’s worst disapproval rating, 51 percent, came during his first term, and he soared to his highest approval rating days after the Lewinsky scandal broke.
As much as Bush advisers dismiss polls, their predecessors in the White House said public rejection invariably drags down the whole institution. “It colors everything you can do,” Donatelli said. “Psychologically, it wears on you.”
Caddell describes a White House down in the polls in one word: “Awful.” “People start going through the motions,” he added. “The energy is gone.”
Assistant polling director Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.</p>

<p>“Unlike many, who seem to buy into Gore’s carefully onstructed “Inconvenient Truth” persona, hook, line and sinker, I would never vote for Gore for President.”</p>

<p>What’s “inconvenient” about Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is the degree to which he himself is personally politically responsible for it. And he could have made a fantastic movie about that - how it came to be that manufacturing ended up in the places with the fewest pollution controls and the most warming potentials, how it came to be that millions were pushed off their land, and millions of those making their ways across the U.S.-Mexican border, why land was deforested, why water pollution around the world has represented a huge “killing” for Coca-Cola, and his own personal culpability. He could have made a fantastic “mea culpa” movie - instead he wants us to take responsibility for his global inferno, and to feel good about recycling (and shipping the toxic sludge on gas-guzzling trucks to Utah). </p>

<p>As I’ve said, I don’t generally make it a practice to vote for wives of mass murderers, whether they are popular or not. I certainly don’t think having them as “advisors” is a big plus, though now that Idi is dead, it isn’t likely he’ll be on the payroll (though one never knows.) I don’t care much about the colors of the jackets. I think a lot of the Dems have disqualified themselves from public trust, not by their vote for the occupation, but by their purchase of the Clinton/Tenet lies five years earlier which made their support of the occupation “a slam dunk”. </p>

<p>Others will feel differently.</p>