BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate

Subject: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:13 PM

Well, I thought somebody else would have started one on the debate by now. But it seems worthwhile to compare notes.

I was impressed by how close they really are in most issues. There were however enough differences to make the choice clear.

Clinton had a golden opportunity to finally admit she was wrong to authorize Bush to use force in invading Iraq, as Edwards has done long ago. Had she done so, it would have brought the house down--and probably won quite a few votes.

But obviously she makes no mistakes--certainly can't bring herself to admit any. We've had that for 7 years already. It doesn't really work out--and it says something about the person which doesn't speak well, to say the least, as we've seen with Mr. Bush.

As I recall she took Obama to task for being willing to negotiate with any regime without preconditions in the first year of the new administration. But later, it certainly sounded like she contradicted herself when she urgently advocated negotiations with Iran as part of aiding the Iraq situation. Evidently it's not necessary to help the Iraq situation in the first year--it's not all that urgent.

She also refused to set a timetable for withdrawal. Obama said all combat troops out within 18 months.

So it seems clear which of the two somebody who's strongly against the war in Iraq would want.

Reading between the lines, it seems evident she's paranoid at the possibility of being thought weak. Sounds like she'd be likely to overreact militarily. We don't really need that.

She also definitely came out against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Obama pointed out that makes no sense from a public safety perspective. It is absurd to think illegal immigrants will not drive. It would actually be nice if they were encouraged--strongly--to get insurance.

Any other perspectives from anybody who saw the debate?

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:26 PM

Yes, I think Hillary would overreact militarily if she were president, and I have been thinking so for quite some time now. I think she would be quite an aggressive politician in that respect...partly from fear of being seen as weak...partly because she brooks no opposition (or perceived opposition)...at home or abroad. Nor is she inclined to admit to any mistakes, as you noted, Ron. Sounds a lot like George Bush, in that respect doesn't it?

My guess is that she and her corporate backers have no intention of withdrawing from Iraq, but are planning to stay there for a long, long time. Why? In order to manage the oil, and in order to maintain permanent military bases there in readiness for any possible future actions against Iran and/or Syria.

Unfortunately, though, I missed the debate tonight. I had a very busy day and have not had time to watch it. I guess maybe I can find it on Youtube later.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:32 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to theorize corporate backers pushing for long-term presence in Iraq--but as far as the admitting mistakes parallel with Bush--bingo!

Sure is amazing there are so many problems, considering that no mistakes have been made in the past 7 years.

A continuation of that has remarkably little appeal.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:37 PM

Also, re: licenses for illegal immigrants--read: mostly Hispanic. I wonder how many Hispanics were watching and heard their friend Hillary veto that idea, while Obama supported it.

It should certainly be made known in Hispanic circles.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:42 PM

Somebody is pushing for a longterm presence in Iraq. I think it would be someone who figures they stand to gain something from it. That would be the oil companies, the various mercenaries (such as Blackwater), the defence industries, and the military and civilian contractors who are gaining many lucrative contracts in regards to the war because of the devastation it has caused and will continue to cause.

It's not just Bush, Cheney, and a few people at the PNAC. It's an entire consortium of powerful and very interested parties.

Any politician who has consistently voted in favour of funding the war when a vote came up...and that includes Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama...has demonstrated their endorsement of the war in no uncertain terms, regardless of their present posturing to the contrary. (in my opinion)

To vote to fund a war is to endorse that war.

I know of very few politicians who did not endorse it in that manner, other than Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:52 PM

"The people will fancy an appearance of freedom; illusion will be their native land.".......Jacques Ellul in The Political Illusion

Its very hard to get worked up over anyone in tweedledum politics. Whether it might have been Kucinich vs. Huckabee in the fall or Obama vs. Romney, it would have made only relatively minor differences after 4 years. I keep promising myself that I'll just sit over here in the corner but I'm so sick to death of these dumbass threads.............

I was a philosophy major in the 60's and all philosophy from the 60's was political philosophy. I read and understood a man in France......Jacques Ellul, whose works I commend to all.   He wrote that politics is a matter of methodology and once you have established the method, the system, those who make it work matter very little. To effect true and significant change requires revolution. This country is well past the its time and need for another revolution and I sadly don't see one coming, at least not in what is left of my lifetime. The best I can now even hope for is to elect a tweedledee who will make the bleeding a bit less painful as opposed to one like Bush who has made the bleeding hurt a bit more. In both or any and all cases, the bleeding will continue.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:21 AM

I'm about to sit down and listen to the re-run with an open mind and a cup of coffee. The constant Clinton bashing by CNN however, has done much to turn me away from Obama and I don't even know the guy.
I'll try to listen to him with an open mind but I must say that so far, he has lacked substance.
Like Hillary or not (and clearly most of you do not) she is an excellent speaker who can put forward her ideas on policy, in a clear and concise manner.
Let's see if either of them can change my mind tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:24 AM

The absolutely amazing thing in all of this is that McCain is looking like the front runner. And this Democrat could actually live with McCain, far better than Bush, if it came to it and the Democrats shoot themselves in their collective foot(s) and lose this slam-dunk election.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:50 AM

I think you're quite correct, Spaw.

However, it's fun for people to argue about politics and they will continue doing so. It's a way they have of expressing themselves.

I too agree that "To effect true and significant change requires revolution." That's what happened in Cuba in 1959.

I see no possibility of such a revolution occuring in the USA unless the USA were to decisively lose a major war (not a small, distant war either) or were to suffer a complete financial collapse. I don't think any of us would want to live through those repercussions. I know I wouldn't.

Yup, you and I are going to die and this gigantic phony fossilized system is going to meander on much in its usual fashion for some considerable time after we are both gone.

Still, it can be quite interesting for some of us to talk about it as we observe its meandering.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:38 AM

Ron: To the question of licenses for illegal immigrants.
Firstly. Obama was asked a much more general question about immigration & the Driver's License question was rather unfairly given just to Hillary Clinton.
There was a definite slant by the moderators throughout the debate to the point that Wolfe Blitzer was actually booed by the audience at one point.
Mind you it wasn't quite as bad as the last one which CNN held on Dr King's day and tried at several points to draw parallels between King & Obama. This guy is no Dr. King.
Nevertheless: Senator Clinton refused to answer the question without qualifying her answer. So she went back to the same question that was given to Mr Obama and finished with (and I'm paraphrasing) "Only when they have met with all of the criteria, would they consider drivers' licenses. The criteria included such things as learning to speak English, going to the back of the line, paying back taxes and so on.
She was actually misquoted by Wolfe Blitzer when he said that she wouldn't give them licenses.
As for the Hispanics.... I have been an immigrant in one country or another now, for more than half of my life. I know what it feels like to wake up every day, an immigrant.
Hillary Clinton's response to the illegal immigrant question was the most extremely well informed that I have ever heard from any politician, anywhere. Her plan was comprehensive and put forward in such a way that it made sense to everyone as were most or all of her policy statements.. I think you'll find that her Hispanic following will actually increase because of it.
Obama was okay, better than in past debates but not in the same league. I really was hoping to see more from him but it just wasn't there. "Change" makes a fine slogan but after you hear it a few times it gets old.
They should change that now.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:13 AM

Those who didn't see this last Demcratic debate before next week's 22 Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses may be interested in this dailykos diary which also contains a number of embedded Barack Obama videos from that debate, and hundreds of poster comments:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/1/01336/71094/85/447397

Why Barack Obama may have won the Nomination Tonight
by kubla000
Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:13:36 PM PST

This diary also contains post-debate opinions of various newscasters. These newscasters either concluded that Obama won this debate, or that it was a tie.

Here's an excerpt of these reporter's conclusion about how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did in that debate:

Mark Halperin's grades:
Clinton: A-
Obama: A-

On Obama: "Tenaciously drove his four core issues (change, unity, inspiration, problem solving), and incorporated them into almost every answer."

**
Andrew Sullivan

He neutralized her on healthcare and simply cleaned up on the war in Iraq. But most crucial: he seemed like a president. He was already battling McCain. She was still pivoting off Bush. In his body language, he carefully upstaged her, without looking as if he were trying. By the end of the debate, he was pulling her chair back for her.
I'd say that he won the primary election tonight.

**
Marc Ambinder

And twenty minutes of Iraq happened. And so I'll give Obama the edge. Clinton was forced, for about 20 minutes, to recapitulate her vote on Iraq, over and over again. It was tough for her. She seemed to mire herself in the details of history.

Obama came into the debate moving up in polls across the country. His presence was, for the first 45 minutes or so, commanding. His opening statement was pitch perfect, segueing from praise for his rivals to the heart of his message. He ably made his case that this is a change election and the trajectory of change is steeper with Obama. His late-in-the-debate answer on Iraq was much better than hers.


-snip-

This diary also includes a Fox News video of undecided California voters who watched that debate. The group of undecided voters {White, Black, and Latino} overwhelmingly indicated that Barack Obama won that debate.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:30 AM

Isn't there a car excise licence situation in the USA?

Here, you have to pay your car tax annually. You have to produce a valid MoT (a basic car safety and emissions test) certificate and a valid insurance certificate showing the driver is insured to drive the car,to get the car tax disc. The car tax disc MUST be displayed in the front window at all times.

No licence, no insurance. No insurance, no tax disc. No tax disc, either the cameras get you or the police patrols or parking wardens do.

The registered keeper of the car gets a fine for himself unless he gives up who was actually driving. Sell the car without registering the new keeper - you get the fines!

People without driving licences and therefore without driving tests is a mad mad mad idea!

We ahve been suffering from unlcensed uninsured drivers a bit, adn illegal immigrationis makingit worse, but at least there is a mechanism to control the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:49 AM

Richard, I can tell you how those laws are gotten around.
One person owns the car....has the liscense, tags, etc. Pays the taxes to get the tags. LOTS of people drive it. And no, a person does NOT have to have a Drivers Liscense in order to buy a car.

The registered owner will go to an insurance company and pay for insurance for ONE month. The card that is then issued has a date ONE YEAR from the payment date. No other payments are ever made.

No insurance checks are done when a vehicle is sold. The buyer is responsible for NEW insurance and inspections.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 08:57 AM

The first point made by that that dailykos diary writer covers the issue of Iraq and addresses the question that was read by the politico.com reporter from an African American woman who asked Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's opinion about whether African American workers suffer from illegal imigration {I'm paraphrasing that question}

"Reasons why Obama may have started down the path to the Nomination Tonight:

1. Hillary Clinton was not able to change the direction of the momentum by playing nice. She entered the debate with a strategy to show some humility after the South Carolina trouncing and while people may come away liking her more, she didn't exactly persuade them to vote for her by skipping an answer on Immigrant Licenses and then spending 20 minutes rehashing her Iraq Vote contentions. Obama by Contrast was clear on his positions with Immigrants, did not pander to his base on the issue of Immigration but rather gave a stronger more forceful answer which will win points in the hispanic community. I'd go so far as to call it his sista souljah moment, with the Hispanic Community, the one Demographic he's hurting in.   Additionally, he offered a stark contrast to the painful jujitsu that Hillary has to balance every time she discusses Iraq. He sealed the deal when he reminded her of the Title of the Bill she voted on. She didn't fool anybody with her answers, and the vote has come back to haunt her. Democrats need to present the voters with a contrast, and Barack made that clear tonight. While people applauded the red meat line about Bush Mopping, the real line that will win votes was "Right on Day One" especially in the light of her tortured Iraq Experience, which was "belabored" as he hinted"...

-snip-

Also, here's several poster comments about the immigration question:

"His immigration answer was a home run.
Someone finally called this scapegoating against immigrants by name for what it really is -- scapegoating.
-by Shem on Thu Jan 31, 2008

**

And Hillary's answer on immigration
Just reinforced that meme. Like she was throwing Latinos under the bus to try and repair the damage with African Americans.

She didn't help herself there at all
-by ChiGirl88 on Thu Jan 31

**
I think Obama did this to go after latino vote
(It was a positive for Obama. He has to get some more latino vote, and has been going after it heavy the last few days. el Piolin (spelling?)*
-by egarr

**

There is no calculus
Obama's position is born out of his community organizing background where he brought poor Latinos and AAs together to accomplish common goals. Obama knows that pitting the least of these against one another takes away all of their power. Obama is very popular with both the Latino and AA community in Illinois
-by peraspera on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:59:15 PM PST

-snip-

* Eddie Sotelo, known as El Polini {Tweety Bird} is a tremendously popular and very influential Latino radio DJ who has endorsed Senator Barack Obama. [Radio La Nueva 101.9 FM - Estaciones de Radio en Los Angeles]/ Senator Ted Kennedy, who recently endorsed Barack Obama, has been a celebrated guest on that radio show, as he is held in high esteem by El Polini and many other Latinos. Here's a link to a summary of Senator Kennedy's appearance this past week on that radio show to encourage El Polini's listeners to get out and vote for Barack Obama:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=400
Kennedy Lionized on El Piolín in 20 Minute Pro-Obama Call

Here's an excerpt from that article:
"The El Piolín radio show, the most popular Spanish-language radio show in America (strike that - see the update below - it is the most popular radio show in any language nationwide), with millions of listeners in California and nationwide, gave a BIG buildup for Teddy at 7:40 a.m. California time with a three minute pre-produced bio calling him "the best senator in America" highlighting Kennedy family history and his leadership on education, health care and immigration reform..."

Sotelo translates his words.

- Kennedy: "Only two senators marched for immigrant rights on May 1, 2006, one in Washington and the other in Chicago. I marched in Washington and Barack Obama marched in Chicago. He was not afraid to stand up when others wouldn't."

- Obama has led in health care for children, in education and jobs.

- "Obama will lead the change and I will be there at his side."

- "70,000 Hispanics have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 11 percent of all the casualties in this war have been Hispanic. The Hispanic youth are patriotic and have served this country."

- "I'm committed to coming back on the immigration bill and Barack Obama will be with me. He is the one candidate who has said that he can do this in his first term. There's too many people that are living in the shadows. Men and women of dignity who love their families who love their faith. I'm on their side and Barack Obama is on their side."

- Sotelo continues translating for his listeners.

- Kennedy pushes his event for Obama with US Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-California) at East Los Angeles Community College, 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. Makes a "personal invitation" to the listeners to attend.

- "I'll do my best to be there after my show," says Sotelo.

-snip-
Senator Obama has also received the endorsement of other popular Latino radio DJs in other US states.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:18 AM

The question about whether Clinton was naive needed to be asked. She has claimed as much, but has cloaked it in language that makes her it seem like it was all Bush's fault and that no one would have thought he'd start a war before having exhausted all diplomatic solutions. THAT was naive.

I watched the vote on C-SPAN. I remember thinking that the Democrats who gave him the power to start a war were doing so to demonstrate unity and maybe not get called un-American. I also was about 90% sure that if they said he could go in, he would, because of his obvious previous speeches to incite and focus anger, and that would be it. Now, I'm not a politician, but if I saw it coming, why didn't Clinton? Why did she trust him to the point she'd vote to give him the power to start a war?

She was either playing along with the good-old-boys, or she was naive. 'Naive' is nice. It makes her look like she wasn't just going along for her image, and I don't think anyone wants a president that appears to just go along with public opinion.

It's just one factor among many though. I think Clinton came out ahead on the MLK Day debate. I think Obama might have edged her out last night, but it was close.

... and then they went out together for pizza and beer.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:34 AM

Also, readers of this thread may be interested in this article:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8248.html

Obama beats Hillary over head with Iraq
By: Roger Simon
Jan 31, 2008 11:54 PM EST

Here's an excerpt from that article:

"Hillary Clinton thought she had driven a stake through it, but it turns out to be the issue that will not die: She voted to authorize the Iraq war, she refuses to say it was a mistake and she refuses to apologize for it.

And Barack Obama continues to whack her for it.

Obama opposed the war early and was lucky enough to not yet be a senator when it first came up for a vote.

Again and again, he pressed this advantage Thursday night at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles in the first one-on-one debate between Obama and Clinton.

Obama exploits the issue in two ways: First, he says Clinton's vote in favor of the war shows bad judgment.

"I was opposed to Iraq from the start," Obama said, "and I say that not just to look backwards, but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely."

Second, Obama says that his opposition to the war is something that he can use against the Republicans in the fall.

"I think I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain, or any other Republican," Obama said, "because they all want basically a continuation of George Bush's policies, [and] because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea."" ...

-snip-

Here are several posted comments from that article's readers
{Note: I admit to only selecting comments that favor Senator Barack Obama. There are other comments to this article from posters who favor Senator Hillary Clinton}

"Ok, hold on. That line drives me mad every time she uses it: "Maybe we need another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush." Alright, first of all: does it MEAN anything? I mean, it has a beautiful rhetorical structure, but what does it mean? Is H.W. really comparable to W.? In what ways? Is Hillary really comparable to Bill? How? What's more, it really demonstrates, for me, the rut of thinking into which Clinton has sunk. Politics for her really is a pendulum swing. Winning politics means pushing the pendulum further in your direction for the time being. She has no sense of DEPARTURE. Meanwhile, the fulcrum of the pendulum has been shifting to the right. We need a game-changer, not a pendulum-pusher".
-eustiscg

**

Ok, lets give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, she made a bad call, SHE said in hindsight she would have not voted to go to war. There is no argument that it was a mistake, the problem I have is she is not willing to admit it. Kind of reminds me of a guy she wants to replace BUSH, who has driven jobs over seas, thanks to a Clinton, he bilked a federal surplus, he brought in unqualified cabinet members that tore America up from the roots, and watching all of his policies unravel devastation on Americans, he cant fix his mouth to say, you know what folks I was wrong. So the argument that Hillary's advisers gave her bad information, just proves my point more, You have to rely on your own judgment. and my final point, when asked about controlling Bill, she assumed responsibility. If you cant admit your error, how can we trust that if elected president, she would be honest with the very people that elected her to office in face of bad choices? IF SHE WINS OFFICE, WE DESERVE EXACTLY WHAT WE GET"
-Jwilson236

**

I thought many of Hillary's answers were all over the place! I just couldn't track with her a lot of the time. I thought she did well on healthcare, but Obama's position of not forcing people to pay for something they don't want makes much more sense to me.

I though the big loss for her tonight was definitely Iraq. What scared me most was how adamant and afraid she is to just admit that she was wrong!!! I think we've all had enough of a President who can never admit when he's wrong...

Obama definitely has the momentum now.
-darrenjohnson

**

"This country has searched for a true leader for decades, someone who can restore our pride, dignity, and soul...I'm sorry but it's not Clinton for me".

well said. I am inspired by Obamas dignity under fire and I sense he is genuine - so different from HRC - her constant smirking tonight brings back all the bad memories I have of the Clinton scandals and why would anyone expect another Clintlon presidency would be any different? The Bush/Clinton dynasty must stop here and now if there is any hope to move our country in a positive direction.
-not ready for 08

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:37 AM

Voting to support troops thrown into combat is in NO WAY voting to support a war:

...Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At it's beginning, Genl. Scott was, by this same President, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes--every department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do,--after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscious, more painful than all his mental perplexity!
                         --Abraham Lincoln, Speech in House of      
                         Representatives, January 12, 1848   

...Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
                         --Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Herndon,
                            February 15, 1848

...I do not mean to do anything with Mr. Ficklin, except to present his face and tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie! He was a member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [Ficklin] knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such indorsement, and voted against it; but I never voted against the supplies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a dollar was asked, by way of compensation or otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, I gave all the votes that Ficklin or Douglas did, and perhaps more.        
Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter. Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my recollection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican War was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President—my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for that resolution.        
Mr. LINCOLN: That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuring the President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that Ficklin knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas organ] reminded the Times that the charge really applied to John Henry; and I do know that John Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of a set-off to what I said to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that he made this charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought this forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the opening speech that Judge Douglas made, he attacked me in regard to a matter ten years old....
                --Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Charleston, IL, September
                   18, 1858

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM

Oh, well cited, good Rapaire. Most interesting.

Spaw, I hope you get to feeling better. LEt's put Obama in and see if he can start the revolution from within.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Peace
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:22 AM

"Obama was okay, better than in past debates but not in the same league."

It is somewhat refreshing to hear a politician NOT have all the canned answers, imo. He's speaking (I think) from the heart. She's speaking from her writer's heart.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:23 AM

I'd award the debate points fairly evenly. Both candidates got in a few favorite lines, Clinton with regard to "Clintons cleaning up the Bush messes" and Obama with regard to "it's not enough to be ready on day one if you make the wrong decision" and all the mean-spirited "scapgoating" at CNN and by conservative Republicans (and some Democrats) on the illegal immigrant issue.

I thought their differences on universal healthcare were pretty narrow, but I would still prefer a "single-payer" plan and ditch subsidizing the health insurance shell game.

Obama gets credit for consistent opposition to Bush's Iraq adventure but their strategies for withdrawal appear similar and appropriately qualified, even with a so-called Obama deadline for withdrawal.

I thought Clinton did a good job of fending off some of Blizer's more loaded questions, and with good humor. She did respond to the question of "who would make Presidential decisions in the Whitehouse," that it would ultimately be her decision. One wonders if Bill Clinton threw a tantrum at that point, from wherever he was viewing the debate; he was not in evidence in the audience.

I was favorably impressed with the level of civility between the two candidates, though with their acknowledgement that they are in keen compeition for the nomination. And that any consideration of "vice-presidential candidate preference" is premature.

I also liked Obama's slap at Romney's financial management qualifications as he pointed out that he had garnered more votes per campaign dollar than Romney had. However, neither candidate was pressed on major economic issues or what their solutions would be. Odd, given that the economy is considered the number one issue at this point in the campaign.

Rapaire-

Interesting post about the Mexican War adventure.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: GUEST,Mr Red
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:28 AM

Well from this side of the Atlantic the story seems to be:

either or - you may get both, and all the arguement is - who is on top (said in the nicest possible way)

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:43 AM

One thing that always has to be kept in mind regarding how people evaluate any candidates performance is this:

The opinion they already have about the candidate profoundly influences their evaluation of the candidate's behaviour.

If they already like someone, then they will put the best interpretation on what he or she says and does. If they don't like someone, they will put the worst interpretation on what he or she says and does.

I see exactly the same problem cropping up all the time on this forum, as regards its membership and the way they relate to one another. ;-)

So it tends to become very subjective. Those who love Obama already will usually think he did a wonderful job. Those who hate Hillary already will sneer at everything she says, no matter what it is.

And vice versa. It cuts both ways.

It's pretty rare to find people who are genuinely impartial and fair in their judgements of politicians...because they usually have a well-used axe to grind.

And that is why those on opposing sides often simply cannot comprehend what in the hell the other people are going ON about! ;-)   (I can't help but think of myself and DougR, for instance, when I say that...)

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:46 AM

How can one sell one's self as an agent of "change" when one cannot admit mistakes???

Clinton says the war was wrong but voted to give Bush the authority to wage it???

Hmmmmmmm???

That, to me, does not instill trust that this lady is any more capable of changing than is Bush...

Does this mean that Obama will lead that "revolution" if he is elected???

Who knows... but he's a better bet than either Billary or McWar...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:03 AM

"Billary"! LOL! Oh, that is cool...

Move over, Bennifer and TomKat!

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:12 AM

Too bad you couldn't watch the debate, Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:13 AM

The New York Times Editorial section offers kudos to John Edwards for winning the battle of ideas even though he lost the electoral campaign.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:14 AM

Wish I could take credit for "Billary" but I can't... I read it somewhere...

I do take credit for "McWar", however...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:17 AM

Little Hawk, with regard to your comment that "Those who love Obama already will usually think he did a wonderful job. Those who hate Hillary already will sneer at everything she says, no matter what it is":

it is also possible that people might assess the past and present statements, policies, and actions of several candidates and their surrogates as a means of deciding which candidate they believe would be the best for that position. And even when they decide which candidate they support, that does not mean that they can't see anything good about the other candidates they did not support.

For a number of reasons, I am a Democrat. As such, I never considered voting for any of the Republican candidates for US President. I am proud to say that I am an ardent supporter of Senator Barack Obama for President. However, I was not automatically for Senator Obama. Initially, I leaned more toward Senator Hillary Clinton. However, as a result of listening, watching, and reading about the policy positions of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in particular {the Democratic candidates who I believe had the best chance of getting the Democratic nomination}, and as a result of the way the candidates and their surrogates conducted themselves during this campaign, I chose to support Senator Barack Obama. I do so because I consider him to be the best person-Democract or Republican-who is campaigning for President.

This doesn't mean that I can't sometimes agree with the positions other candidates [presently in the campaign or who have since dropped out of the campaign] have stated.

That said, I don't feel the need to advocate on this forum or elsewhere for any other candidate besides the one who I have chosen.

Those who support another candidate can spend their time and energy posting on behalf of that candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:26 AM

To LittleHawk's point.
When Hillary explains her position about the Iraq invasion, she cannot admit to her mistakes and that's a bad thing.
When Obama chides her for it, he says he won't make mistakes and that's a good thing.
Twisted logic.
We all make mistakes and if you continue to give this man a free pass you will be making one.
You must test him.
But as the man said "The opinion they already have about the candidate profoundly influences their evaluation of the candidate's behaviour."

That is a hurdle that most of us never clear.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:40 AM

Yes, Azizi, I understand your position.

We are always teetering between subjectivity and objectivity...and the question is, to what extent, and how much to one side or the other?

I lean more toward Obama than Clinton too, for various reasons. My favorite, of course, was Dennis Kucinich, and I think I like Edward's platform better than Obama's or Clinton's, but Kucinich never had a chance, and Edwards is out now. So it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:47 AM

I was for an Edwards/anybody ticket too but the opportunity to see America's first Vulcan President has been too much for many to resist.
It's a shame that he dropped out.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:49 AM

Has any male candidate ever been asked who would make the decisions in the White House, i.e. spouse-wise?

Bring back the ERA!!!

McCain could win, if he gets nominated. I listened to him being interviewed last night on Letterman. He seems to be more vitalized than I've seen in the past. At least if he got it, it wouldn't be a total disaster, out of all of the GOP candidates.

I cannot make up my mind re' Hillary or Barack. Still watching and listening.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 11:58 AM

He doesn't scare you, eh, Kat? He sure scares me.

I do not think that being a war hero has anything to do with qualifying a person for political office. Soldiers are trained to fight battles and handle weapons, they are not trained to assume the management of civilian politics and social infrastructure, nor are they trained to negotiate and compromise with people...they are trained to fight on a battlefield and triumph or die.

That does not make a very good resume for assuming a civilian post, in my opinion.

I can't recall a single Canadian politician who ran for office on the basis of his military credentials.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 12:49 PM

After the debate, it was obvious that Clinton has the maturity and the understanding of the situations facing us to deal with a recalcitrant Congress of elected representatives with varied and often opposing views.

A president may lead, but he cannot dominate unless he has majorities in both houses. The polls from across the country are close, it is doubtful that either party will dominate in Congress. Stalemates can only be resolved by careful balancing and integration of ideas- in other words, the leader must be a good horse trader. No one will end up completely satisfied.

McCain has strong support and may well win out. Neither party is liberal at the grassroots, and many potential Democratic voters may not be ready for an Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Peace
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:11 PM

Much the same was said about JFK.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM

Funny -- the papers I read all came out believing Obama defintiely walked away with the blue ribbon in that debate.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:50 PM

Since everyone else is offering their 2 cents, I may as well jump in for what it's worth.
Maybe 2 cents or less.

Obama is a personality kid. No substantive information on the important issues such as
how to end the Iraq occupation, sub-prime problem, campaign finance reform, election fraud, stem the tide of recession/depression, bring down the national debt, keep the jobs from going overseas, tariffs, trade malfeasance and racial division.

His bone-headed mistake was to try to attract Reagan Democrats by even mentioning Reagan in a positive light. Big mistake.

Hillary wasn't talking many specifics either. She is more of an executive the Obama and since we call the president the chief executive, this makes a difference in her presentation for better or worse. She tends to be wonky and general at the same time. The deal with her defending her vote on Iraq is that she thinks she is liable to run against McCain who will hit her with the issue of "national security", a trumped-up canard but one the Repubs will run on. Of course it will be Billary. The only positive note is that this couple is economy-hip. They had Robert Rueben and Robert Reich as consultants and they were able to bring down the Deficit. Also, people were better-off financially during the Clinton years. This was not due to Republican policies of the past, that is a joke.

Either of the front-runners have the specifics that Edwards talked about but they are not sexy enough to interest the American public who would rather analyze personalities.
(Maybe American Idol should run the elections.....I'm not serious)

McCain will bring this country to ruin because he is more of GW Bush. The rich corporate types will benefit and the middle and lower class will be screwed. He hasn't a clue as to foreign policy and wouldn't know an Islamist if he were bit on the ass. All he knows is bigger weapons, bigger military industrial complex and saber-rattling chest-beating.
He may be a victim of the Stockholm Syndrome in which he would act like his captors at the Hanoi Hilton.

Both candidates could keep the US military in Afghanistan (another ruse) and possibly invade Iran (but this depends on which way the wind blows them). Anyway the old
French expression applies to this election season, Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose (The more things change the more they stay the same).

Money talks and bullshit walks.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM

Well, maybe it's your choice of which papers to read....

Or maybe it's your neighborhood or region...

Or maybe you are literally blind to the newspapers that didn't have that opinion, not even capable of registering them on your consciousness, and you're therefore unaware of it. ;-) (just joking)

I have now seen part of the debate, but not all of it. The part I saw, they both seemed to be doing quite well, I thought. More or less a tie. Hillary does give the impression of being more experienced, while Obama has a certain grace in both his speech and his physical movement/posture which is quite rarely seen.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:56 PM

And that, again, was for Amos...

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Peace
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:58 PM

The 'more experienced' thing shouldn't be an issue, imo. George Bush is experienced.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 01:59 PM

Hey Little Hawk: some of us actually have TVs and WATCHED the debate. People getting their info second hand have to sort through everybody's...er subjectivity. When you witness it first-hand, you only have to sort through your own.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM

Has any male candidate ever been asked who would make the decisions in the White House, i.e. spouse-wise?

But then no male candidate has ever been married to a previous President.
Nobody ever dreamed of asking Maggie Thatcher if her husband Dennis would be making the decisions about anything, and I imagine that would be how it would work with a female candidate who had come up in politics without that kind of connection.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:17 PM

I have access to a TV, Jeri, and I would have watched the debate had I had the time to. Alas, I did not. I caught some of it today on CNN.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Mr Red
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:31 PM

It's pretty rare to find people who are genuinely impartial and fair in their judgements of politicians...because they usually have a well-used axe to grind.


well if the axe is 5000 miles long it ain't hard to be impartial but then we don't have quite as much riding on the grind wheel.

Personally I am anti all politicians. The politician who can see both sides of an issue is not a politician.

Good luck: the Hillobama Show - it looks to be a winner.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Peace
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:38 PM

Been using the same axe for over fifty years. It's had two new heads and four new handles. Great axe.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 02:53 PM

Experience is important. Of course Bush is experienced, as a result he continues to call the turn and will until end of term.

Running the United States is a horse-traders dream. No bill that goes to the President for signature (unless about motherhood) gets there in the way it was originally written; additions and subtractions are made by legislators with strongly contrasting views, committees knead the bills into a form that has a chance for passage, (or the bill is deep-sixed or sent back for changes), re-submitted to the house where it was proposed and may be passed- with amendments and goes to the other house. The bill may be passed there in a different form and then it goes back to committee to resolve differences and then is voted on again.
(Current example- The House has passed the economic stimulus bill but the Senate is balking; there will be changes before they get together (they probably will, since this is an election year)). The president says he will veto amendments, so the bill may be some time before a compromise bill is attained.

Clinton is much better able to handle the rough and tumble, Obama seems to have neither the patience nor the horse-traders sense of the possible.

I dunno if we will see a Democratic president; for many people (not just the rich) the Republican Party still seems to be the best for their interests. This election looks to be as close as the last one.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:08 PM

Clinton is much better able to handle the rough and tumble, Obama seems to have neither the patience nor the horse-traders sense of the possible.



I submit you don't know the man, Q. In another Obama thread I posted a link to the New Yorker character study on Obama which gives quite the contrary impression -- he is an expert horse-trader and completely calm in the face of clashing ideas. I hope you find and read it.

I also think he will add energy to the dialogue in a way that will actually reduce the fractiousness in the process of legislation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM

HEre's another reason Obama may well capture the nomination.

"Democrat Harry Truman said, "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." "

BEtween the two of them he is far more the Democrat, and she far more the Democrat acting like a Republican. While this is an inverse of the equation Truman offered I believe it still holds true.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 03:28 PM

A matter of opinion, Amos.

(The New Yorker is a mag I scrupulously avoid as an urban cocktail party mildly pinko screed)

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:37 PM

"BEtween the two of them he is far more the Democrat, and she far more the Democrat acting like a Republican."


                But when Give-'em-Hell-Harry was running, there wasn't a candidate who a large part of the voting public thought was a Muslim...

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:42 PM

If a large part of the voting public believes that, Rig, they have been listening to the sewer. I hope you are neither among the gullible nor those promulgating the scurrilous falsehood.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 09:44 PM

No one has enough experience going into the Presidency. No one. No matter how long they might have served as a state governor, the head of a major international corporation, a Representative, a Senator, even as Vice President, they do not have the experience of the "buck stops here" this-is-it no-foolin' hot seat until they sit in it and attempt to execute the laws passed by Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Feb 08 - 10:36 PM

"...mildly pinko screed.." Actually it's not really a good idea to refuse to read anything. I read the WSJ virtually every day--including the more-Bushite-than-thou Neanderthal editorials. But I always learn something from it--and them--even if, as is virtually always the case, I completely disagree. And sometimes I even do agree--as when they push for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants--and warn their fellow Republicans that their punitive attitude is consigning them to long-term minority status.




Interesting. Clinton wants to push "experience" as her strong suit. Experience in foreign policy--since you can bet that's what McCain will be pushing. Now where was this experience she is touting? In the White House? As First Lady? She said something about being responsible for opening the Macedonian border. A First Lady doing that. Wonder what the State Department says about this story.

Also, in her impressive floundering around to justify her vote to authorize Bush to use force, she made several attempts to come off as a prudent statesman. Obama caught one of them--exactly why did she not think Bush would use force, since, as I recall, "Authorization to Use Force" was part of the title of the resolution?

Then she took another tack which also turns out to be a red herring. She cited the Levin Amendment as subordinating US judgment to the UN Security Council. "I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore I voted against it".

Only problem is: she's totally wrong. The proposal required that Congress "not adjourn" before it "promptly considers proposals related to Iraq if the United Nations fails to adopt such a resolution."

So either she's ignorant or lying. I wonder which it is.

It's amazing how much that reminds you of the last 7 years.

Another helping? No thanks.

And she never did make the simple statement that would have changed the whole situation--that she was wrong to authorize Bush to use force.


It's fairly evident that she was, as usual, trying desperately to exactly calibrate the middle of the electorate--not pro-war nor pacifist--and, also as usual, refusing to take a stand until absolutely boxed into it, for fear that might alienate somebody. Just as it was pulling teeth to get her to finally admit she was against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.



But if she thinks this sort of fudging will save her in a matchup against McCain on national security, she's somewhat deluded, to say the least.

It should be painfully obvious to anybody that if national security is the number one issue, a real national hero who has stood consistently against what the Right calls "Islamo-Fascism" will have no problem dealing with her.

So she winds up being McCain lite. And McCain gets all the national security votes.

Then there's the other side.   Obviously if you want to win, you frame the debate in a way that favors your strengths. The idea of "change" and an end to constant partisan battling struck a deep chord in the US. And it's by far the Democrats' best issue. And who embodies this? No contest--Obama.

So she winds up being Obama lite.

So why should the US settle for anything but the real thing? And it's not Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 04:29 AM

LH, I didn't say he didn't scare me, just basically he's the best of the GOP lot, imo. I do NOT want him to win anything. It's got to be Senator Clinton or Senator Obama or our country will suffer even more.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Mr Red
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 05:31 AM

Peace LOL
first heard that as a broom but it is so much funnier in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:09 AM

"If a large part of the voting public believes that, Rig, they have been listening to the sewer."


                      Oh yeah, they have been listening to the sewer, Amos, you're right about that. But I've seen letters to the editor in the newspaper here, referencing the presidential campaign, that talk about Mormonism as a "cult," and continue to display disgust because one of the candidates is a Muslim.
                      Many of the people where I work think Obama is a Muslim. Most of them are Right-wing Republicans, so I didn't think it mattered much what they thought. But I was talking to a couple of ladies in the office the other day who told me they were both registered Democrats, and if Obama got the nomination, they were going to vote Republican, because they think Obama is a Muslim.

                      I'm beginning to think that a lot of Hillary Clinton's support amoung the poor working people is not so much a factor of racism, but more because they equate Obama to Islam. Purely speculation, you understand.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:12 AM

I hope you corrected their misperception, there, Rig -- stand tall for the truth, at least.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:42 AM

Look here.   Then refer others.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 10:53 AM

These people get their political convictions from church. I don't know if it comes from the pulpit, or is just circulated around the congregation before and after services. When they are told something to be factual in that setting, it's been my experience that anything you do to try to convince them otherwise is totally futile.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:22 PM

But I've met arcconservatives around here Rinslinger...(we don't have that many of them in these parts)...who hate the church just as much as you do. They are committed atheists, and they are also archconservatives. The reason they are archconservatives is because of their hatred of socialism and "liberalism"...and their support for aggressive promotion of private-sector "trickle-down" economics. They are mostly small business people. They are all white men. They think life is all about money and personal power and maintaining the dominance of rich white men.

You don't have to be religious to be a right winger.

And you don't have to be non-religious to be a socialist either! ;-)

I can't make out why so many people always assume that rightwingers are religious and socialists are atheists. Those are 2 stereotypes that get bandied around a lot, and they are not necessarily accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:36 PM

Jeri, the question as to why did Hilary (and most other Dems) give Bush authority for the war. They did it, as Tom Hanks says in the trailer for "Charlie Wilson's War" because of "tradition, mostly". Now, they won't say that (even when challenged), so Clinton--like Kerry & Edwards in 2004--are left claiming some beyond the pale reason, rather than the real one.

Same is true w/Supreme Court (and to a slightly lesser extent, lower court) nominations.

These things are considered by most senators to be the perogative of the executive branch. When senators look to do the checking and the balancing (a role which is more commonly taken on by the House than the Senate "traditionally") of the executive branch, they nearly always give the president the benefit of the doubt. Why?

Tradition, mostly. And because many US presidents went directly from the Senate to the White House. Not in recent decades, of course, where more governors have become prez than senators. But a lot more senators have become president than former members of the House.

For that reason, Senate relies on tradition far more than the House does.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:37 PM

One reason is that the predominant influence of the religious emergent masses who started swinging their political weight in the Reagan years came down on the mid to far right.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:49 PM

Working from the other end, if one considers Karl Marx to be the foundation of modern socialism, his observation that "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses" might turn some people who disagree to the opposite economic camp.

                  But I think Amos is right. When the folks running Ronald Reagan needed to put together a coalition to challange the Democrats, they grabbed onto the ultra-religious, and it made for a winning team, at least for the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:53 PM

The Obama-Muslim nonsense still has currency in the smaller communities- as noted above by Riginslinger, it is spread in the church environment, and taken as gospel.
My wife gets emails from rural in-laws in Georgia; they cannot be disabused from this notion and reference the preacher or his wife or church council or some such.
There is much Romney support, which surprised me because he is LDS.

Amos, I shouldn't have made that remark about the "New Yorker," a magazine I see in my doctor's waiting room. Its urban New York focus glazes my eyes- perhaps a good thing because after glancing at a few pages I doze off and catch a catnap (much like Monday night football which after 10 minutes is soporific).

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 02:21 PM

I don't like McCain's stand on the war, but I don't revile him the way the partisan Dems here do. The partisan Dems here revile McCain today, but in 2004 and 2000 especially, were well disposed towards him.

What has changed? They know he can beat their Dem candidate.

I actually trust McCain for more than Obama or Clinton, because he is pretty much WYSIWYG. Both Obama and Clinton strike me as slick, slippery, slimey types, bought and paid for--what was it Obama raked in last month? Over 30 fucking million dollars?

You think that was all $50 donations on the Internet? I don't.

Both of their health care plans suck. Obama WILL stay in Iraq if elected, because he won't be able to figure out how to get the fuck out. Why do I believe this? Because he has no connections/network among the policy wonks who know how to get us the hell out of there.

McCain, when compared to Clinton and Obama, isn't very far apart from them on immigration, health care, taxes, "economic reform" (hah! as if) to deal with corruption and the worsening recession (caused largely by the corruption).

So when I, as an independent, look at McCain, then look at Clinton/Obama, I see pretty much the same stands on the vast majority of issues.

So then, it comes down to judging the character of the person, as some here have pointed out, because no one goes in on "day one" and knows how to make the right decisions.

And when I look at character--out of the four front runners going in to Super Tuesday, I'd pick McCain over the other three, hands down.

And I'm about as anti-military as they come. But like many others, I feel like there wouldn't be any character surprises with him. He is very much the old dog we know, and I think he puts the good of the nation before his own ambition more often & in a way none of the other three does.

Finally, McCain would win in the character column because he has been so independent of his party's ideologues over the years ESPECIALLY the Bush/Cheney ideologists. He ain't no chicken hawk. This dude is the biggest hawk since Robert McNamara.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 02:56 PM

Vote for Obama, then, GG. You'll sleep better at night. And have left a trace of good int he world in spite of yourself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 03:03 PM

Why should I vote for the candidate who is most beholden to Big Money, Amos?

Big Money ain't funding McCain.

Big Money is funding Obama, Clinton, and Romney.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 03:16 PM

"This dude is the biggest hawk since Robert McNamara."


                      You mean the same Robert McNamara who used to lie to the president about the situation in Vietnam, and stage the Gulf of Tonkin thing, that Robert McNamara?

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 03:35 PM

I duno about beholden; but I think you would be voting for the best person in the field who has a viable shot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 03:50 PM

Have another shot of the kookaid, Amos. It keeps you nicely sedated and voting just the way the corporations want you to vote.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 03:57 PM

Yes, that Robert M.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 03:20 PM

If you like Bush, you'll love McCain. He'll put us in a war with Iran.

Hillary wants to hedge her bets with McCain over "security"...a complete and utter myth as an issue.

Obama is not good on specifics. How will he bring troops home in 18 months?

Obama is a sweet-talker but where's the data to back him up? He is not for
universal health coverage. He wants to make that optional.

Why did he bring up Reagan? To collect the so-called Reagan Democrats (formerly known as Dixiecrats).

Good that he was opposed to the "war" and hopefully the current "occupation". But where are the details? (Yes, I checked his blog.)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 04:08 PM

I think Hillary has a much better chance nationally than Obama. She just might cut McCain down.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 04:13 PM

In his speech just concluded in Saint Louis, Obama showed he was very good with specifics, with real programs, and still had the crowd in tears of relief because he spoke to them directly and honestly, bringing out the best they had. This man is a phenomenon, but not just a rhetorical one. He has the sand.

This is not a moment that should be ignored. He's without question the best representative of the country to stand up since FDR or Kennedy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM

Q - "I think Hillary has a much better chance nationally than Obama."


                   I agree with that. I think the Swift-Boaters are just hiding in the reeds with their engines idling. If Obama gets into the general election they'll pull back the throttle.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:29 PM

Or maybe....

Shadows on the walls...

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 08:40 PM

Well, I certainly agree with that. I would happily vote for Kucinich if I found his name on the ballot, or even Ron Paul.

                      Frankly, I think this whole thing is a little more insidious than just a "corporate" takeover of America.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM

You are under-estimating your man. This time, after eight years of Rovian bullshit tactics, the Dems will be ready for whatever they pull, I hope. They must know what to expect. But the thing is these jaded extrapolations of blood and gore are trivial and meretricious compared to what he represents, the possible turn in the path he is offering to find and follow. That's worth more than all the Monday quarterback second-guessing in the country, which is worth f*** all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:39 PM

"Hillary has a better chance nationally than Obama".

Fine, you've said this before. You have a problem however marshalling the slightest bit of evidence or logic to support your bald assertion.

Which tends to undercut its value a bit.

While there is all sorts of evidence on the other side. Which we can go over one more time if necessary--though we've listed it already more than once--in case you've been too busy listening to Rush and your other sterling sources.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:45 PM

OK, the remark about Rush was uncalled for.

But it is in fact time for those who think Hillary has a better chance against McCain to say exactly why.

Otherwise it will be apparent they have no logic and no evidence behind their assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:08 PM

Well, I don't really think she has a better chance against McCain than Obama does. But I know this. ALL people are under the very firm impression that their opinions are backed up by common sense and logic...it's just that their common sense and logic is coming from a different angle from someone else's, that's all. ;-)

EVERYBODY believes their own logic implicitly. That's how the human mind works. People form an opinion, based on an absolutely infinite number of different reasons...but the moment they have arrived AT that opinion, their mind begins detecting and concocting all sorts of supposedly logical arguments to support it...and they are frankly puzzled by how illogical their opponents' logical arguments sound! And their opponents are doing the same thing at the same time.

You can create a logical proposition of some sort to support ANY political viewpoint. Just listen to the candidates do it! ;-D

You see, who can claim to have a monopoly on logic? Or on facts? Or on which facts are most relevant to an issue and in which particular order?

No one. Because there are an infinite number of facts and viewpoints out there to pick from. But most people would certainly like to imagine that they (as opposed to those they disagree with) have a monopoly on reason and common sense, wouldn't they?

That, again, is how the human mind works. It's very opinionated and unreasonable. Once a human mind recognizes this unreasonableness in ITSELF as well as in others...it may then be approaching some sort of level of maturity...and it may then begin to develop the ability to laugh heartily at its own frailties as well as at the frailties of others.

Mark Twain, I think, was quite good at that, and it makes his books a joy to read.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:15 PM

OK LH, no argument.   I make it a rule not to argue with Mark Twain. But since some are convinced Hillary has a better chance against McCain, I'm still waiting for any logic or evidence to speak to that narrow issue.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Sorcha
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:19 PM

Sometimes I begin to wonder why we even bother with all this. I'm so damn cynical that I am nearly convinced that The Candidates and The Winner have probably already been decided by The Big Corporations. The rest of it is just a game they play to keep the unwashed masses semi happy.

The days when a poor/middle class Nobody could rise to the President of the United States are long gone. If they ever existed. Money talks. I really did get a chuckle out of the other thread title...'Politcal Party Owned by Big Money Now'...it was the 'now' part that made me laugh.

I'll go ahead and vote though...for whatever it's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:23 PM

"Once a human mind recognizes this unreasonableness in ITSELF..."


                  Then it's kind of rendered inoperative, without any obvious way to go, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:31 PM

Not at all. It just develops a little more humility, and a better sense of humour, that's all. And it respects other people more than it used to.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 12:01 AM

Screw that psychobabble, Little Hawk. Obama is riding a sea-swell that is bigger than both the Clintons.


The man is hitting his stride.

It will take some very dirty politics to have any effect toward stopping or dissipating the seachange he is promoting. Not that it won't be tried.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jim Lad
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:22 AM

"But it is in fact time for those who think Hillary has a better chance against McCain to say exactly why."

McCain is far too old to take the job and the voters know this.
It will be Romney.

Hillary is an extremely powerful speaker who happens to be very good in the corners.
Obama is the weak link. That is why the media is pulling for him, for the time being.
I'm with Sorcha.
I would not be surprised if the decision has already been made.
Having said this; Hillary has done a fine job of overcoming a biased news media and fudged election polls.
Her results in Florida are an example of how well she can do with an uncontaminated electorate.
It will be Clinton/Edwards versus Romney/? with the Republicans winning by a respectable margin.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:54 PM

The principal difference in policy between Clinton and Obama involves health care. Their approaches are different.
Estimates by Johnathan Gruber of M. I. T., a leading health care economist, finds that a plan resembling that of Obama would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a cost of approx. $102 billion per year to the taxpayer. A plan covering practically everyone, of the type proposed by Clinton, would cost the taxpayer approx. $124 billion per year. Looked at overall, the Obama-type plan would cost $4400 per newly insured person, the Clinton plan only $2700.
Clinton's plan achieves almost universal coverage; the other, Obama's, costing 80% as much, covers only half of those currently uninsured.
Obama has demonized the idea of mandates (a recent scare mailer sent to voters resembles those sent out by the insurance lobby in 1993).
If Obama happened to reach the White House, it will become clear that universal coverage cannot be achieved without mandates.
There is a chance that if Clinton gets the nomination, she might be able to carry through and win universal health care for us. But with Obama, there is no chance.

The above is explained in a column in the New York Times, Feb. 4. 2008, by Paul Krugman.

Obama calls for the removal of U. S. troops within 16 months if the Democrats win. When pushed yesterday, he had to admit that timing would depend upon the situation- as Clinton has stated. Sixteen months sounds good, but is impossible.

Obama is a man with no clear idea of the results if his proposals were ever carried through.

Of course, no program will pass a divided Congress without compromise. Clinton is a much better compromiser and horse trader than Obama, who tends to get angry whenever someone questions him.
Hillary Clinton is the best choice for a Democrat-led change.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:02 AM

I've never seen him get angry.

And I demur; he is, I think, by far the better person between the two, in terms of integrity. Which I think would stand him in far better stead, when facing the unknowns ahead of us. This is vividly clear to me.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Sorcha
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:12 AM

No 'program' of ANY kind will pass Congress without compromise. That is a given.

We NEED a National Health Service for ALL Americans...somehow, someway. I damn sure don't know the answers but it scares the HELL out of me that neither of our children or our grandson has any coverage at all.

Health care in the US MUST stop being tied to employment. It is a basic human need and is provided in ALL other developed countries. I am quite certain that our son or daughter would choose to die over a several hundred thousand dollar medical bill that would follow them (and their families) for the rest of their lives. It's just easier.

We MUST get our soldiers (I nearly said children there....) OUT of Iraq. As soon as possible. Our presence there is not doing anyone any good at all. And don't feed me crap about Iraqui children or civilians. We have those right here at home that need help too. If we can't help our own citizens have better lives what right do we have to 'help' others?????

I know, I'm getting very close to Isolationism here and I don't think that is a good idea either. Pretty near impossible these days too. Didn't even work when we did try it.

I just wish I was smart enough to have some answers. I don't. Just Opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jim Lad
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:05 AM

"Troop removal from Iraq" is a bit of a trap door.
Most governments who are involved in Afghanistan are facing the same questions from opposition parties.
No-one can honestly put forward a withdrawal plan without putting the lives of troops and allies at risk. So I wouldn't deduct points from either candidate for getting it wrong. The fact that they both state their intent to come up with a withdrawal plan should please most Democrats.
I'd also suggest that Obama's plan intentionally excludes a number of citizens. Not that he is mean spirited or incapable of coming up with a better plan but because it's easier to sell to Republicans and he is looking ahead to the Presidential race.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:58 AM

I seem to see, in the UK press, more recognition of the fact that Clinton is proposing a more universal, less insurance-led, health system. Frankly that is an essential step towards civilisation as I understand it.

It also conforms to the suggestsoin I saw early on (not with very specific details) that on a number of policy details Clinton was to the left of Obama, and on virtually none tot he right.

Love her or loathe her, unless she is planning to tear up those proposals if in office, that makes her the better candidate for the USA right now, because America desperately needs a welfare state, both for health and poverty - and the injection of money into those things will revive the economy like Hitlers "guns not butter" drive in teh 30s. Or like Roosevelt's "New Deal".

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:25 AM

You heard it here first, McCain will be the next President, a woman or a black, no opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:27 AM

A house divided against itself?

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:55 AM

There is an arrogance to Obama, especially when he is challenged, that I really dislike. And his wife is a loose cannon, who could, by shooting her mouth off, lose the election for the Dems. I guess what many people are seeing as his so-called specialness, I see as the emperor parading with no clothes. Emphasis on the emperor part--Obama seems to embody this Royal We thing, especially when he invokes his wife and talks about how great their marriage is, and how wonderful her mothering skills are--the Obamas score no points with me, having Michelle as the sole parent of the children.

And there is an arrogance to Michelle Obama too, that I distrust--especially the personal attacks on Hilary for Bill's philandering. That just sets the cause of women's rights back about a millenium. I'm really not interested in the marital affairs (pardon the pun) of the candidates, and I don't want them to be discussed in the campaign. For me, her going on about what a good mother she is, how she is at home with the kids every night and weekend, just raises my hackles.

There is far more prejudice being shown against Hilary as a female candidate than there is against Obama as a black candidate, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Jim Lad
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:55 AM

Well written, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:32 PM

Except for the fact that it makes no sense. There is no prejudice against Clinton--unless you count:

dislike of Billary's trying to typecast Obama--falsely-- as a "black candidate"--to be consigned to that electoral ghetto

dislike of her refusal--even now-- to admit that she was wrong to vote for Bush's authorization to use force against Iraq--we've had 7 years already of a "leader" who refuses to admit mistakes

dislike of her attempt to change the rules of the game after the game has been played: she agreed that Florida and Michigan votes would not count. Now after she has "won" them, she wants them counted.

dislike of her lying about the Levin Amendment--or possibly she was just ignorant--in which case she shouldn't be citing it as the reason for voting for starting the Iraq war

dislike of Billary's citing Obama's statement citing Reagan as an agent of change as somehow endorsing Reagan's political views. Both Bill and Hillary themselves have also cited Reagan positively--Reagan was even on a list of Hillary's admired presidents.

Can you spell H Y P O C R I S Y?i

etc, etc. ad nauseam

None of which has a thing to do with being a woman.

Sorry, as they say: that dog won't hunt

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:34 PM

I have confidence you can spell it--and without the extra i.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:44 PM

It sees better with the extra "i" in it.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM

As long as you can grasp the association with Hillary--do you think you can manage that?

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:49 PM

I don't know. That's a pretty tall order.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:59 PM

Well, it would require putting brain in gear.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:35 PM

I must say I admire your mutual brevity... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 10:49 PM

Still waiting for refutation of any of my points--or the slightest scintilla of evidence of prejudice against Hillary for being female.

I'm actually not a huge fan of Mr Bush and his "team"--perhaps that's anti-male prejudice?

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:34 PM

White and black males are going for Obama. There is your proof right there.

And your little scintilla too.

Subject: RE: BS: 31 Jan: Clinton-Obama debate
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:11 AM

So you haven't noticed white and black females also voting for Obama? . Sorry, it's not quite as simple as you picture it (unsurprisingly).

And, by the way, get a handle--or you're not worth discussing anything with.