DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[BigSqwert]

Here you go - this is what I was talking about a few posts ago, I knew of it but couldn't find the exact quote. This is what Obama said during the debate when they pressed him on Clinton's sniper white lie. He tried to change the subject... didn't work though.

 

“[T]he fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we’re delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered, because we are recorded every minute of every day. And I think Senator Clinton deserves, you know, the right to make some errors once in a while. I’m — obviously, I make some as well.

 

“I think what’s important is to make sure that we don’t get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years. Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People’s incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we’re seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.

 

“In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this — these kinds of errors I think is a mistake.”

I'm not sure what else he could say to change the topics. He would be lambasted if he just flat out refused to answer some of the stupid questions being thrown at him.

[BigSqwert]

This made me chuckle:

 

Over at the famously rude Wonkette politics blog (now under new ownership) the gloves were off in a live blog by Jim Newell: "Wow, George Stephanopoulos just asked an embarrassing question: 'Does Jeremiah Wright love America as much as you?' Seriously. Because if he doesn't, then he cannot be your Secretary of Black that you obviously intend to make him."

 

LINK

[Balta1701]

As I mentioned, *they* may have done it poorly, but certainly they have already talked about the mortgage crisis, I can't believe NAFTA is still an issue; Iraq, economy, etc, again covered many times over.

 

I guess then in your opinion, debaters should keep hammering away at the economy, Iraq, etc. and BARELY touch on anything else? Ican understand that, but one debate for an hour or so, out of the tens of thousands of hours they will speak, seem trivial enough to allow for minor subjects and characters. In fact, if anything, I think there has been aterrible job done of expanding beyond the top four or five positions. We certainly have the time and resources.

There are probably a few dozen issues out there though that haven't been covered more than in a cursory way. I can come up with about 5 right off the top of my head that either deal with recent events or could at least provoke thoughtful responses.

 

1. Global warming (thanks to the coal industry's sponsorship of about 1/2 of the debates this term, I think that there's been basically 1 question asked of any candidate by a professional reporter, and 1 other asked by a snowman. In probably 30 some debates between the 2 sides)

2. China. How do you respond to the crackdown on Tibetan monks, and how can the U.S. put pressure on China to improve its human rights while at the same time needing China to support its currency and support its negotiating position on North Korea?

3. Torture. Not the "Are you in favor of it" question, but "I=What can be done with the American government to prevent another administration from authorizing the use of torture as a national policy in the future"?

4. Hamas. Mr. Obama recently said that while he was willing to negotiate with other leaders, he was unwilling to do the same with Hamas. If that is the case, how do you expect the middle east peace process to be moved forwards?

5. What are your reactions to the current mess in the aviation industry, and what steps will your administration take to prevent them in the future? Conversely, how will these steps be paid for and who will foot the bill?

 

Yes, a lot of questions have been covered in a lot of detail, like Iraq, etc. But if we're going to have this many debates, let's actually hit some creative policy minutia questions. It's not like in a 3 trillion dollar government running 2 poorly executed wars there's not more than a few of them.

[HuskyCaucasian]

For those of you who saw the debate and Gibbson's attacks on Obama over raising the capital gains tax, thought this was interesting. Apparently Gibbson didnt do enough research...

As President Reagan noted when he signed the 1986 tax reform, taxing capital gains at a lower rate than other income gives people enormous incentive to game the tax code. If the tax rate on ordinary income for high-income taxpayers is 35 percent, and the tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, then these folks can get a 20 percent return if they can make wage, interest, rent or dividend income appear as capital gains income. This can fuel a lot of creative tax shelters. This gap will also lead to an increase in capital gains tax collection - at the expense of ordinary income tax collections.

http://www.gototheboard.com/articles/The_C..._Than_You_Think

[iamshack]

Here you go - this is what I was talking about a few posts ago, I knew of it but couldn't find the exact quote. This is what Obama said during the debate when they pressed him on Clinton's sniper white lie. He tried to change the subject... didn't work though.

 

“[T]he fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we’re delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered, because we are recorded every minute of every day. And I think Senator Clinton deserves, you know, the right to make some errors once in a while. I’m — obviously, I make some as well.

 

“I think what’s important is to make sure that we don’t get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years. Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People’s incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we’re seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.

 

“In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this — these kinds of errors I think is a mistake.”

 

Lost,

I thought this was a good quote to read.

 

However, if you saw the debate, you saw how awkwardly it was delivered by Obama. He seemed somewhat embarrassed to engage is picking on Hillary for her Bosnia lie, and instead, chose to go the more civil route.

 

It's humorous how these two can launch attacks at one another from the safety and distance of their campaigns, but then once they get together for a debate, they realize just how ridiculously immature this nonsense all is, and squirm at trying to deliver the same insults while sitting next to one another on live television.

[lostfan]

They said he was awkward throughout pretty much the whole thing. I don't recall Obama jumping all over Hillary for the Bosnia thing though, at least not with the same venom Hillary uses when she attacks Obama. The media did that for him. He did turn it into a segway for something his campaign was saying earlier though, that she was exaggerating her foreign policy experience (a conclusion I came to months before I ever heard Obama's people say it).

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama: Prominent Clinton PA Supporters Switching Sides Today

 

Obama campaign to hold 12:30 pm ET media call with Clinton Pennsylvania supporters who are switching their support to Obama due to the "recent wave of negativity."

[southsider2k5]

For those of you who saw the debate and Gibbson's attacks on Obama over raising the capital gains tax, thought this was interesting. Apparently Gibbson didnt do enough research...

 

http://www.gototheboard.com/articles/The_C..._Than_You_Think

 

I am really curious how he explained record tax collections accross the board the last couple of years then...

[iamshack]

They said he was awkward throughout pretty much the whole thing. I don't recall Obama jumping all over Hillary for the Bosnia thing though, at least not with the same venom Hillary uses when she attacks Obama. The media did that for him. He did turn it into a segway for something his campaign was saying earlier though, that she was exaggerating her foreign policy experience (a conclusion I came to months before I ever heard Obama's people say it).

 

Well, that's part of the problem for Obama, or perhaps Clinton, is that Obama doesn't go on the attack with nonsense like this, he only uses it when he absolutely must fight back against her. And so he comes off as being a bit squeamish when this kind of stuff comes up in the debate.

 

 

[lostfan]

I'm not interested in entertaining the tax debate until people start seriously addressing controlling spending. To his credit, McCain does.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama: Prominent Clinton PA Supporters Switching Sides Today

the original news story was inaccurate. Not "prominent Pennsylvania supporters" as Stephanopoulos (yes, HIM again) originally reported. Just 3 plain voters.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm not interested in entertaining the tax debate until people start seriously addressing controlling spending. To his credit, McCain does.

Obama supports a moratorium on "ear marks" in 2009 so they can spend time working on reforming the ear mark system.

[lostfan]

Well, that's part of the problem for Obama, or perhaps Clinton, is that Obama doesn't go on the attack with nonsense like this, he only uses it when he absolutely must fight back against her. And so he comes off as being a bit squeamish when this kind of stuff comes up in the debate.

It's a catch-22 for him. Do you refuse to fight back, risking damage to your image and looking squeamish, like you don't have the balls to stand up for yourself? Or do you counterattack, go on the offensive, do something about it, risking the prospect of going too far and violating what you've been preaching about in your whole campaign? He started seriously having to consider getting more aggressive after Texas and Ohio.

[bmags]

some interesting comments from trib's swamp blog, after more Ayer's talk:

 

"

 

Hey, guess what, the world is not divided into terrorists and non-terrorists. Bill Ayers is a fantastic person to know. He is first of all, not a professor of English, but of Education, and secondly, at the University of Illinois at Chicago, not U of C. I'd proudly serve on a board with him, no matter what his past. His dedication and caring to helping teachers learn how to best value and teach children who get routinely shut out and left behind should be applauded, not ignored.

 

Posted by: Melissa W | April 17, 2008 10:00 AM

 

If anyone is actually bothering to read the comments on this non-issue, I figure I’d offer an opposing viewpoint to the shamelessly biased comments below. For the record, I’m not an Obama supporter, and I do not consider Mr. Ayers anything more than an acquaintance. But, I am a former CPS teacher who had Mr. Ayers speak in my classroom. Twice. Not because I support his actions with the Weather Underground, but because one of my coworkers knew him, he is very accessible and approachable, and he speaks with remarkable candor in discussing that time period. At least to my students, he absolutely admitted regret at the poor judgment he and his cohorts used in the WU.

"

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is great:

Does Gibson know the Constitution?

In the first question of the night, Gibson asked Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton whether they'd agree to former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's suggestion that the winner of the delegate fight should be the presidential nominee and the loser should be the running mate. Neither went along with that.

 

So Gibson pressed: Just to quote from the Constitution again, "In every case" -- Article II, Section 1 -- "after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president."

 

Alas, that part of the Constitution no longer applies. And it hasn't for more than 200 years. If it did, John Kerry would be vice president today.

 

It was superseded by the Twelfth Amendment, which was passed in 1804.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Anyone else notice Hillary Clinton makes a lot of promises that cost money? Now, to be fair Obama has made some proposals. But every group she gets up in front of, she panders to the group by saying "i'll give you a tax credit for this. Or. I'll start this $100 billion program, or I'll spend money on this". That's a hell of a lot of money if she REALLY plans on putting all of them in place.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama on the Debate:

[Balta1701]

Anyone else notice Hillary Clinton makes a lot of promises that cost money? Now, to be fair Obama has made some proposals. But every group she gets up in front of, she panders to the group by saying "i'll give you a tax credit for this. Or. I'll start this $100 billion program, or I'll spend money on this". That's a hell of a lot of money if she REALLY plans on putting all of them in place.

I'm sorry, but on this one I just can't see how there's any relevant difference. I'll almost guarantee you that if you added up all of the proposals people put forth for tax cuts and spending increases, the winner for biggest hole in the deficit would be McCain, and Hillary and Obama would be somewhere well below him, and even then, it'd be a matter of how you count proposals and tax increases as to who comes out on top.

 

Everyone does some version of this. The only question that matters is whether or not the media calls them on how they're going to pay for things. Obama got called last night on some of his tax increases, which conveniently would have raised taxes on the 4 "middle class" folks on the stage.

[Texsox]

There are probably a few dozen issues out there though that haven't been covered more than in a cursory way. I can come up with about 5 right off the top of my head that either deal with recent events or could at least provoke thoughtful responses.

 

1. Global warming (thanks to the coal industry's sponsorship of about 1/2 of the debates this term, I think that there's been basically 1 question asked of any candidate by a professional reporter, and 1 other asked by a snowman. In probably 30 some debates between the 2 sides)

2. China. How do you respond to the crackdown on Tibetan monks, and how can the U.S. put pressure on China to improve its human rights while at the same time needing China to support its currency and support its negotiating position on North Korea?

3. Torture. Not the "Are you in favor of it" question, but "I=What can be done with the American government to prevent another administration from authorizing the use of torture as a national policy in the future"?

4. Hamas. Mr. Obama recently said that while he was willing to negotiate with other leaders, he was unwilling to do the same with Hamas. If that is the case, how do you expect the middle east peace process to be moved forwards?

5. What are your reactions to the current mess in the aviation industry, and what steps will your administration take to prevent them in the future? Conversely, how will these steps be paid for and who will foot the bill?

 

Yes, a lot of questions have been covered in a lot of detail, like Iraq, etc. But if we're going to have this many debates, let's actually hit some creative policy minutia questions. It's not like in a 3 trillion dollar government running 2 poorly executed wars there's not more than a few of them.

 

I guess that is what I was thinking of when I said let's hget off these topics and on to others. I understand ABC did not pull this off, but I even appreciate the "silly fluff" pieces.

[Balta1701]

I guess that is what I was thinking of when I said let's hget off these topics and on to others. I understand ABC did not pull this off, but I even appreciate the "silly fluff" pieces.

I think that if there were a reasonable number of "Silly fluff" pieces in a campaign, but the media and the debates spent a reasonable amount of time actually working on issues, policy, things that might actually matter, then a.) I wouldn't be so annoyed about the silly fluff pieces when they do show up, but also b.) we wouldn't have a debate where 2/3 of the time is spent on silly fluff pieces.

 

You've got 2 of the 3 people campaigning for the most powerful position in the free world on a stage in front of you, and you spend that time talking about flag lapel pins, whether or not Obama's pastor loves America as much as him, and whether or not they'll be on the same ticket for the 4th time.

[mr_genius]

There are probably a few dozen issues out there though that haven't been covered more than in a cursory way. I can come up with about 5 right off the top of my head that either deal with recent events or could at least provoke thoughtful responses.

 

1. Global warming (thanks to the coal industry's sponsorship of about 1/2 of the debates this term, I think that there's been basically 1 question asked of any candidate by a professional reporter, and 1 other asked by a snowman. In probably 30 some debates between the 2 sides)

2. China. How do you respond to the crackdown on Tibetan monks, and how can the U.S. put pressure on China to improve its human rights while at the same time needing China to support its currency and support its negotiating position on North Korea?

3. Torture. Not the "Are you in favor of it" question, but "I=What can be done with the American government to prevent another administration from authorizing the use of torture as a national policy in the future"?

4. Hamas. Mr. Obama recently said that while he was willing to negotiate with other leaders, he was unwilling to do the same with Hamas. If that is the case, how do you expect the middle east peace process to be moved forwards?

5. What are your reactions to the current mess in the aviation industry, and what steps will your administration take to prevent them in the future? Conversely, how will these steps be paid for and who will foot the bill?

 

Yes, a lot of questions have been covered in a lot of detail, like Iraq, etc. But if we're going to have this many debates, let's actually hit some creative policy minutia questions. It's not like in a 3 trillion dollar government running 2 poorly executed wars there's not more than a few of them.

 

 

1) Exact fiscal policies. A taxation plan that includes more than 'no tax breaks for the wealthy' rhetoric. Exactly what will the tax brackets be?

 

2) A plan to cut the deficit and spending.

 

3) Universal health care cost. What is the exact cost of their plans, how do they plan on paying for it? How do they plan on lower costs in general?

 

4) How to build our economy. Detailed plans, not lame rhetoric.

 

5) What they plan to do about terrorist surveillance.

 

6) Education. How they plan on fixing this complete disaster which is our public education system. We spend the most and get horrible results. Students will not be ready for the future job market and economy.

[Texsox]

I think that if there were a reasonable number of "Silly fluff" pieces in a campaign, but the media and the debates spent a reasonable amount of time actually working on issues, policy, things that might actually matter, then a.) I wouldn't be so annoyed about the silly fluff pieces when they do show up, but also b.) we wouldn't have a debate where 2/3 of the time is spent on silly fluff pieces.

 

You've got 2 of the 3 people campaigning for the most powerful position in the free world on a stage in front of you, and you spend that time talking about flag lapel pins, whether or not Obama's pastor loves America as much as him, and whether or not they'll be on the same ticket for the 4th time.

 

We could be at a stage where we know the differenes between these two, which is the matter at hand. I'm guessing there isn't much to do but wait and see the next two we will be trying to differentiate.

[BigSqwert]

Underlining the inanity of last night's Democratic debate, at the same time that Senator Barack Obama's patriotism was being questioned because of his decision not to wear an American flag pin on his lapel, neither of the two debate moderators were -- you guessed it -- wearing a flag pin of there own.

 

Indeed, as one reader of the Huffington Post pointed out, neither the well-dressed Charlie Gibson nor his sidekick George Stephanopoulos donned an American flag last night. In fact, Obama's opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton, didn't have one either.

 

That, of course, didn't stop the ABC honchos from raising the issue strictly with Obama.

 

LINK

[lostfan]

3) Universal health care cost. What is the exact cost of their plans, how do they plan on paying for it? How do they plan on lower costs in general?

 

6) Education. How they plan on fixing this complete disaster which is our public education system. We spend the most and get horrible results. Students will not be ready for the future job market and economy.

These 2 stick out to me... especially controlling the costs of healtchare and all the inefficiencies in it which is the root cause of the problem. I'm all about getting everybody coverage... IF the costs are controlled, otherwise we've accomplished nothing except fixing a problem by creating another.

[Balta1701]

Excerpt of the beginning, full remarks in the video.

“I will tell you, it does not get much more fun than these debates. They are inspiring events,” Mr. Obama quipped. “Last night, I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people. It took us 45 minutes!”

 

“Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care. Forty-five minutes before we heard about Iraq,” he continued. “Forty-five — 45 — minutes before we heard about jobs. Forty-five minutes before we heard about gas prices.”

...

 

“They like stirring up controversy and they like playing gotcha games, getting us to attack each other. And I have to say Senator Clinton looked in her element,” Mr. Obama said. “She was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. You know, that’s all right. That’s her right. That’s her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit.”

If you watch the video, I think the best part's his little move at about 3:00 in. Could well be a Pop culture reference.