DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[NorthSideSox72]

So, Richardson is apparently making enough gains to make some other candidates get a little nervous. He is now in double digits in support in both Iowa and NH. Candidates have started pecking him about his Iraq troop withdrawal promise, which appears at odds with earlier statements that he may leave a few soldiers in the area. Things keep getting more interesting as we get nearer the first primaries.

 

[Balta1701]

So, Richardson is apparently making enough gains to make some other candidates get a little nervous. He is now in double digits in support in both Iowa and NH. Candidates have started pecking him about his Iraq troop withdrawal promise, which appears at odds with earlier statements that he may leave a few soldiers in the area. Things keep getting more interesting as we get nearer the first primaries.

Richardson started running an ad today featuring left leaning bloggers talking about his Iraq policy. It's certainly an interesting thing to see as a campaign ad.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

<!--quoteo(post=1509612:date=Sep 25, 2007 -> 03:19 PM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->

<!--quotec-->So, Richardson is apparently making enough gains to make some other candidates get a little nervous. He is now in double digits in support in both Iowa and NH. Candidates have started pecking him about his Iraq troop withdrawal promise, which appears at odds with earlier statements that he may leave a few soldiers in the area. Things keep getting more interesting as we get nearer the first primaries.

Richardson started running an ad today featuring left leaning bloggers talking about his Iraq policy. It's certainly an interesting thing to see as a campaign ad.

 

Richardson's campaigners seem to be aware of something important - that they cannot catch the leaders being like a regular candidate. His first ads were those ones where he was in a fake job interview, and he actually used humor to get his face and name out there - something you almost never see among politicians. Here, is is trying to get attention from the new "connecteds" - bloggers, who will dictate a lot in this campaign, for better or worse.

 

I actually don't necessarily agree with Richardson's particular Iraq escape plan, but I have to say I think he's been pretty impressive as a campaigner thus far.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The fact that Hillary's camp managed to get a GQ story that was critical of her squashed (by way of saying they'd lose access to Bill), has now been on the top stories board on both the Trib and CNN web page all day.

 

[Texsox]

The fact that Hillary's camp managed to get a GQ story that was critical of her squashed (by way of saying they'd lose access to Bill), has now been on the top stories board on both the Trib and CNN web page all day.

 

Nice to see those two working together. Too bad Hillary couldn't cut off access to Bill when Monica was around

[NorthSideSox72]

So during last night's debate in NH, Russert asked all the Dem candidates if they could pledge to have ALL troops out of Iraq by 2013 (end of next Prez term). Only Richardson, Dodd and Kucinich said yes. The others kind of hemmed and hawed. On the one hand, this is a bit frustrating, as it seems most of the candidates are pulling back on their promises. But, the way Russert framed the question, it wasn't "will you substantially end the war", it was, "will you remove ALL the troops". But in any case, its interesting to see that most of them seem to favor the idea of getting out, but leaving a residual force. That seems to be the current party line.

 

On the subject of whether or not they would lift the 97k SS tax cap and apply the rate to all income... Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd and Biden all said they would. Richardson was alone saying he would not. Clinton gave a non-answer: "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table" (isn't that the point of a debate, Hillary?). Biden said he would consider raising the retirement age from the current 67 to something higher. Kucinich, interestingly, said he wants to move it back to 65.

 

Asked if they would use force to prevent Iran from going nuclear, they all said they favored diplomacy first, but none of them ruled out military action.

 

And a fun one... the question was posed if any of them favored lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 (drawing cheers from the Dartmouth crowd). Only Gravel and Kucinich said yes to that one.

 

[Texsox]

The troop question was poorly worded. I hope were there in 2013 rebuilding the country after *they* get *their* s*** together. I even see a military base or two. But I would not want field operations, moving neighborhood to neighborhood.

[BigSqwert]

I found this in a user comment on the Trib regarding the debate last night. Can anyone confirm this?

 

Actually, Obama had the best line - when asked Red Sox or Yankees, he said "Sox! But the wrong color - I'm a White Sox fan"

Edited September 27, 2007 by BigSqwert

[Balta1701]

The troop question was poorly worded. I hope were there in 2013 rebuilding the country after *they* get *their* s*** together. I even see a military base or two. But I would not want field operations, moving neighborhood to neighborhood.

I don't think that's a poorly worded question at all. I think it actually shows where the debate the 70% of the country who is sick of this war is going to wind up. The question is...do we just throw down and get out all the way and let the people there fight it out with the guns we've bought them, or do we leave a presence in the country to try to slow down the rate at which they kill each other after we leave?

 

Personally, I think it's fairly silly to leave a small, residual force barricaded around bases in a country that hates you with long, expensive, and vulnerable supply lines. You don't remove the "The U.S. is holding onto territory in Iraq" issue, you don't remove the U.S. propping up the government issue, and you massively increase the risk to the remaining U.S. forces there. (unless, of course, you surround them with dudes from Blackwater).

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think that's a poorly worded question at all. I think it actually shows where the debate the 70% of the country who is sick of this war is going to wind up. The question is...do we just throw down and get out all the way and let the people there fight it out with the guns we've bought them, or do we leave a presence in the country to try to slow down the rate at which they kill each other after we leave?

 

Personally, I think it's fairly silly to leave a small, residual force barricaded around bases in a country that hates you with long, expensive, and vulnerable supply lines. You don't remove the "The U.S. is holding onto territory in Iraq" issue, you don't remove the U.S. propping up the government issue, and you massively increase the risk to the remaining U.S. forces there. (unless, of course, you surround them with dudes from Blackwater).

So are you voting for Kucinich or Richardson in the primary, then?

 

 

[Balta1701]

So are you voting for Kucinich or Richardson in the primary, then?

 

Dodd has actually been acting and sounding scarily sensible lately.

 

Richardson has an in on me with his Iraq policy, but a lot of his other issues he's simply not where I'd want him to be (i.e. esp. domestic politics), and while he's not at the Fred Thompson level, he has sort of acted like a "not ready for prime time" guy as well, and after the 04 campaign, I'd really worry about voting for another one of them.

[southsider2k5]

Michelle Obama was quoted yesterday as saying Barack had to win Iowa, or it was "over".

[NorthSideSox72]

Michelle Obama was quoted yesterday as saying Barack had to win Iowa, or it was "over".

Seems way early to be saying something like that, especially with the very large amounts of money Obama has raised.

 

One thing I am sure Obama should be doing, and maybe is, is to try to convince some of the candidates who have zero chance but still have a bit of support (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel) to get out before Iowa and endorse him. I am sure that Clinton and Edwards are trying the same thing. Those few points they get from those guys could make the difference between winning and coming in 3rd in Iowa.

 

[southsider2k5]

I don't think in a Democrats world, you could have a much harsher slam than the bolded comment.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-hillary-i.html

 

Queen Hillary, Empress of Mesopotamia

25 Sep 2007 11:15 am

 

 

 

My friend, David Brooks, does his best to reinforce the Hillary-Is-Inevitable consensus in Washington right now. He may regret this, though:

 

On "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Clinton could have vowed to vacate Iraq. Instead, she delivered hawkish mini-speeches that few Republicans would object to. She listed a series of threats and interests in the region and made it clear that she’d be willing to keep U.S. troops there to handle them.

Then we hear this from a right-wing reporter with access to Bush:

 

[Josh] Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that "even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there."

 

"Especially if it's a Democrat," the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. "He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out."

If Clinton is that comfortable with a permanent occupation of Iraq at this point in the election cycle, how comfortable do you think she's going to be next year? You think a politician so obsessed with gaining and wielding power is happy to relinquish any in the Middle East?

 

Patrick Ruffini draws the obvious conclusion:

 

Hillary is morphing into a George W. Bush Democrat. While that will draw heat from an increasingly desperate Obama, she will pay the price in the general election, not because she’s totally wrong, but because Democrat-inclined voters will smell something fishy about their gal acting like the one they’ve so long fantasized of kicking to the curb. And if she wins, the BushClintonBushClinton consensus will be back.

The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency. And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia, a recently deposed court just waiting to return to the salons of DC, a consort happy to be co-president for another four years, and a back-channel to the other royal family. She'll even have more powers than Clinton I, because Cheney has given her back various royal prerogatives: arrests without charges, torture, wire-tapping, and spy-ware on your Expedia account. Only the coronation awaits.

 

Vivat! Vivat! Vivat Regina! Unless, of course, the coronation is happening just a little too soon.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think in a Democrats world, you could have a much harsher slam than the bolded comment.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-hillary-i.html

And... its probably somewhat accurate. She is showing herself as being something not in step with most Dems. Again, there is a long time to go till Iowa in late January, and I think these comments combined with her perceived unelectability at the national level may end up knocking her off her perch. This is not a done deal yet.

 

[kapkomet]

I commented on this earlier... she IS, which is why I say you liberals out there have been totally duped. Enjoy what you sew, because it's going to be ugly. As long as the remaining Re-pube-licans can keep her from getting her way on health care, whatever, because she is no different then the rest of them.

 

Excuse me while I go barf.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I commented on this earlier... she IS, which is why I say you liberals out there have been totally duped. Enjoy what you sew, because it's going to be ugly. As long as the remaining Re-pube-licans can keep her from getting her way on health care, whatever.

I haven't seen anyone here saying they support Hillary, or that they thought she was on the left or even the center of the party. No one here has been "duped".

 

Now, among some people in the public who are supporting her, that's another story...

 

[Balta1701]

I commented on this earlier... she IS, which is why I say you liberals out there have been totally duped. Enjoy what you sew, because it's going to be ugly. As long as the remaining Re-pube-licans can keep her from getting her way on health care, whatever, because she is no different then the rest of them.

 

Excuse me while I go barf.

One of the things that is probably helping Hillary big time is that when you ask what people think Hillary's policy on Iraq is...most people say she'll withdraw all troops within about 6-9 months, which is totally not the case. It's entirely possible that as her position becomes more clear and people pay more attention, that is something that could majorly hurt her.

[Texsox]

I don't see the Dems winning the White House with any of their big three. Unless Rudy G. gets nominated. That's the only match up I leave as a toss up or slight edge to the Dems.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't see the Dems winning the White House with any of their big three. Unless Rudy G. gets nominated. That's the only match up I leave as a toss up or slight edge to the Dems.

The polls say otherwise.

 

As long as its not Hillary, the Dems will probably win the Presidency in '08 over any of the GOP contenders.

 

[kapkomet]

John Edwards will make Jimmy Carter a good president. That's all I'll say.

 

[Texsox]

John Edwards will make Jimmy Carter a good president. That's all I'll say.

 

And Ford and Nixon as well. Great point.

[Balta1701]

Michelle Obama was quoted yesterday as saying Barack had to win Iowa, or it was "over".

The campaign has sent out a transcript of her actual remarks and is saying that the Quad City Times misquoted her.

“Iowa will make the difference. If Barack doesn't win Iowa, it's just a dream, but if we win Iowa, then we can move the world as it should be. And we need your help in making that happen so join me."

The QC times has corrected said quote:

(EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this story incorrectly quoted Michelle Obama's remarks. The above quote reflects her words based on a transcript provided by the campaign. Other news outlets have reported the same quote as the campaign.)

[NorthSideSox72]

The campaign has sent out a transcript of her actual remarks and is saying that the Quad City Times misquoted her.

The QC times has corrected said quote:

Makes more sense.

 

[Texsox]

Side bar log for the camp fire, nothing more, nothing less.

 

This is where things get tough for people covering the campaigns. The candidates staff will prepare handouts with the speech, then they try and listen for any deviations. After hearing the same stump speech for the 287th time, they may be paying attention and catch a slip while somone else is just taking the campaign notes for it.