DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...-will-msm-notic

 

Iraqi ethnic cleansing, a "positive thing"? That's what Barack Obama seemed to say on this morning's "Today." The Dem presidential contender spoke with substitute co-anchor David Gregory on the heels of Meredith Vieira's ill-tempered interview of Condoleezza Rice.

 

View video here.

 

DAVID GREGORY: You heard Secretary Rice say there is progress in Iraq that cannot be ignored. She spoke about when, not if, the United States prevails in Iraq. Do you see it that way?

 

BARACK OBAMA: I think it's important to understand that after two days of testimony [by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker], here's the bottom line: that having put an additional 30,000 troops in, and continued the same course we were on, we are now back to the horrendous levels of violence that we were back in June of 2006.

 

So there's no doubt that we've seen some measured progress in Anbar province, primarily because the Sunni tribal leaders made a political decision there that they would work with the coalition forces. We've seen a very modest reduction of violence in Baghdad, partly because entire neighborhoods have essentially been ethnically cleansed. Those are all positive things, but we are now back at the levels of violence we were 18 months ago.

 

 

Do I think Obama believes that ethnic cleansing is a "positive thing"? No. But he said it, and made the "positive thing" comment immediately after speaking of the ethnic cleansing. This is yet another Obama gaffe, further proof he's a not-ready-for-prime-time player.

 

I expect the Hillary campaign to pick up on this. Will the MSM? Can you imagine the woe that would betide a Republican who came within a million miles of suggesting that ethnic cleansing is a "positive thing"?

[BigSqwert]

I really do not like those point-counterpoints after the President speaks, and will not watch. I know it;s the whole equal time thing but I prefer to spend those moments contemplating what the President said, noit having "the other side" tell me what to think.

How much counterpoint can you get in 2 minutes? From CNN.com:

Also, former Sen. John Edwards, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has purchased two minutes of advertising time on MSNBC on Thursday night immediately following Bush's speech, an Edwards aide said.

[NorthSideSox72]

How much counterpoint can you get in 2 minutes? From CNN.com:

Edwards only needs about 2 seconds to cover his range of material...

 

1. Look at my hair. LOOK AT MY HAIR!

2. Smile pretty for the camera.

3. "We can no longer have 2 Americas" while gesticulating with one hand.

 

Am I missing anything?

 

[Texsox]

I usually feel all warm and cozy when the President speaks. Then twenty seconds later the crap begins. I'll take an evening of loving my President and country and read the crap in the morning.

[BigSqwert]

Edwards only needs about 2 seconds to cover his range of material...

 

1. Look at my hair. LOOK AT MY HAIR!

2. Smile pretty for the camera.

3. "We can no longer have 2 Americas" while gesticulating with one hand.

 

Am I missing anything?

I can't help but to think of Jack Tripper of Three's Company fame every time I see Edwards. If they ever make a feature film of the 70s hit show he can play Jack's character. It's not like he'll be employed in the next 4 years.

[Balta1701]

Edwards only needs about 2 seconds to cover his range of material...

 

1. Look at my hair. LOOK AT MY HAIR!

2. Smile pretty for the camera.

3. "We can no longer have 2 Americas" while gesticulating with one hand.

 

Am I missing anything?

Here are some excerpts from his actual prepared remarks:

“Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he’s ever had – more time, more troops, and more war.

 

“In January, after years of evidence that military actions cannot force a political solution, the president announced a military surge to force a political solution. In May, he vetoed a plan to end the war, demanded more time to show the surge could work, and Congress gave it to him. Now, after Gen. Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when all of us know it won’t.

 

“But Congress must answer to the American people. Tell Congress you know the truth -- they have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice: a firm timeline for withdrawal.”

[kapkomet]

You're so pretty, Johnny. SO pretty.

 

What a moron.

 

[Rex Kickass]

It's actually a smart move for a campaign to take. I'm surprised more candidates don't do this.

[kapkomet]

It's actually a smart move for a campaign to take. I'm surprised more candidates don't do this.

Meh. John Edwards does what the polls tell him to do... leaders should take a stand, on something. The only thing I have seen Edwards stand on is the "two Americas" baloney, which isn't exactly visionary.

 

[Texsox]

Do politicians have any responsibility to follow the will of their constituents? I always felt yes. That is 70% of their district believe one way, they should seriously look at that, and probably follow that lead.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's actually a smart move for a campaign to take. I'm surprised more candidates don't do this.

I was thinking about this last night. I am not sure if it was or not. It certainly puts him on point, gets his face out there, makes him look like a voice for the people... those are all positive political themes for him. But, it wasn't really making him look at all Presidential. It made him look like a Senator. And I don't know it that is a good thing for him right now.

 

[southsider2k5]

I can't help but to think of Jack Tripper of Three's Company fame every time I see Edwards. If they ever make a feature film of the 70s hit show he can play Jack's character. It's not like he'll be employed in the next 4 years.

 

Thank you for posting that, because I thought I was the only one who was waiting for Edwards to take a pratfall.

[EvilMonkey]

Do politicians have any responsibility to follow the will of their constituents? I always felt yes. That is 70% of their district believe one way, they should seriously look at that, and probably follow that lead.

I generally agree with this. However, problems arise when the politicians take the stands and claim them as their own, that they have always held this position, etc. i would have more respect if one would come out and say "I am against this bill, but 80% of my people want me to vote for it. So following the lead of my constituents, I am voting for this bill"

[Texsox]

I generally agree with this. However, problems arise when the politicians take the stands and claim them as their own, that they have always held this position, etc. i would have more respect if one would come out and say "I am against this bill, but 80% of my people want me to vote for it. So following the lead of my constituents, I am voting for this bill"

 

What problems?

[EvilMonkey]

What problems?

YOU FLIP-FLOPPER! If politician A has a known position for gun control, but 80% of his people are against it, if he then changes 'his' stance to against it, claiming he was always against gun control, etc., then he is a hypocrit and/or flip-flopper. If he said something like I want more gun control, but my peeps don't, so I am voting their way because it is them that I represent, not myself only, I can deal with it.

[BigSqwert]

If politician A has a known position for gun control, but 80% of his people are against it...

...then there's no chance he ever represents them.

[Texsox]

So the problem is the perspective of being a flip flopper?

 

I don't have a problem with a politician changing his views on an issue. I understand that the Republican view of the world is we are born with our views and never change them, but I think people are more elastic, and do change opinions either by being exposed to new information or life events. We have allowed a great political strategy, designed to get someone elected, to cloud what should be responsible governing.

[StrangeSox]

So the problem is the perspective of being a flip flopper?

 

I don't have a problem with a politician changing his views on an issue. I understand that the Republican view of the world is we are born with our views and never change them, but I think people are more elastic, and do change opinions either by being exposed to new information or life events. We have allowed a great political strategy, designed to get someone elected, to cloud what should be responsible governing.

 

The problem is the reliability and conviction of the person. If they are constantly changing their positions based on what the political will is this month, but claim to strongly hold these beliefs, they're full of bullcrap. That's not the type of person you want or need leading a country.

 

If, however, they change their opinion based on new facts instead of new opinion polls, or vote against their own beliefs in order to vote as their constituants want, its a different story.

[Texsox]

The problem is the reliability and conviction of the person. If they are constantly changing their positions based on what the political will is this month, but claim to strongly hold these beliefs, they're full of bullcrap. That's not the type of person you want or need leading a country.

 

If, however, they change their opinion based on new facts instead of new opinion polls, or vote against their own beliefs in order to vote as their constituants want, its a different story.

 

well said.

[EvilMonkey]

The problem is the reliability and conviction of the person. If they are constantly changing their positions based on what the political will is this month, but claim to strongly hold these beliefs, they're full of bullcrap. That's not the type of person you want or need leading a country.

 

If, however, they change their opinion based on new facts instead of new opinion polls, or vote against their own beliefs in order to vote as their constituants want, its a different story.

Glad someone saw thru my rambling to the meaning of what i wanted to say, and even said it better.

[Texsox]

Glad someone saw thru my rambling to the meaning of what i wanted to say, and even said it better.

 

I totally misread what you meant.

[kapkomet]

The problem is the reliability and conviction of the person. If they are constantly changing their positions based on what the political will is this month, but claim to strongly hold these beliefs, they're full of bullcrap. That's not the type of person you want or need leading a country.

 

If, however, they change their opinion based on new facts instead of new opinion polls, or vote against their own beliefs in order to vote as their constituants want, its a different story.

Bingo. Very well said.

 

[Chet Lemon]

Wes Clark endorses Hillary

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070915/ap_po/...ark_endorsement

[Balta1701]

Hillary Clinton today unveiled a new version of a universal health care system...it would basically open up, with subsidies, the government level health care plans to all non-government employees and allow that system to compete with private insurers for signups, thus making it so that no one is forced to change health care providers if they don't want to. It would also include a mandate, again with government assistance, requiring that everyone in the country purchase some form of health care.

 

Edwards, meanwhile, ripped Hillary on Healthcare.

 

And Gov. Richardson opened up a session in front of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by saying "Thank you AFSCME". Wrong union.

[southsider2k5]

Hillary Clinton today unveiled a new version of a universal health care system...it would basically open up, with subsidies, the government level health care plans to all non-government employees and allow that system to compete with private insurers for signups, thus making it so that no one is forced to change health care providers if they don't want to. It would also include a mandate, again with government assistance, requiring that everyone in the country purchase some form of health care.

At her cost estimate of $110 billion a year. In government speak that probably means about $200 billion a year. I also wonder if that estimate included the 12 million illegals that she wants to make citizens.