DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[NorthSideSox72]

i think Clinton asking Obama to co-sponser her bill was a BRILLIANT move. And Obama was put in an odd situation. He didn't say yes or no... we'll see how it gets spun.

Meh, they all had basically the same stance on the issue anyway.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Watching the debate tonight...

 

--All three candidates came had strong voices

--Clinton seems to have reverted to the candidate-in-waiting method - we'll see if that arrogance helps or hurts

--Obama started weakly, but then recovered and got a few good laughs

--Edwards was pretty much his normal self, though he looked pretty bad on the locally hot topic of Yucca Mountain

--But also Clinton and Obama (not just Edwards) had at least one screwed up answer - Clinton on finance (which she is clearly not knowledgeable on) and Obama on taxation (he sounded bad trying to defend his tax policies)

 

Overall, probably not much coming of the debate. But it was fun.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, let's look at the 2 NV polls taken this month for the Dems...

 

________ARG__R2000

Clinton.....35........30

Obama.....32........32

Edwards...25........27

 

So its a dead heat between Clinton and Obama, with Edwards running just a few points behind. With it being a Caucus, basically, its wide open.

 

[YASNY]

first off:

 

His son, Wade, died at age 16. he's had to face and overcome enormous personal tragedy. And yes, his son's death DID set him on this path to run for the senate and really MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the world.

 

Then with his wife's situation, it puts it in even more perspective. John Edwards has NEVER undergone a "convenient change". He's undergone the same changes that affect every American in this country. The loss of loved ones changes people. The prospect of death changes people. Can you deny this? Both of these events in his life have led him to make the decision to take his fight for people who have no voice from NC to the national scale. If he were just saying what it took to win he'd be saying the things that Obama is about hope and optimism and bringing people together. That sells well. Unfortunately none of that is actually practical in a real world situation. Edwards knows this - knows it'll take a fight - and unfortunately he banked on the American people being intelligent enough to realize it too. Unfortunately, they just fell for the good speech.

 

As a father that lost a 15 year old son, I can testify to what a life altering event that is ... not can be, but is. So, yes, I can see where Edwards may have been a trial lawyer for the prestige and profits, then everything changed and he set his focus on making a difference. Is this what happened with him? I don't know. But I can believe it happening that way. Of course, I can also see him deciding that the best way to be influential enough to make a difference was to continue to be successful and ride that success toward his goals.

 

As for Reddy losing all credibility for his comment on Obama's religious 'conversion'? Well, damn, but I've heard snarky remarks about Bush's religious stances for 7 years and how he used religion to get elected in the first place. I guess that would make the whole Democratic Party have questionable credibility.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Well, let's look at the 2 NV polls taken this month for the Dems...

 

________ARG__R2000

Clinton.....35........30

Obama.....32........32

Edwards...25........27

 

So its a dead heat between Clinton and Obama, with Edwards running just a few points behind. With it being a Caucus, basically, its wide open.

As I've said before, I believe caucuses favor Edwards and Obama, especially in a close race.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

--But also Clinton and Obama (not just Edwards) had at least one screwed up answer - Clinton on finance (which she is clearly not knowledgeable on) and Obama on taxation (he sounded bad trying to defend his tax policies)

It appeared to me that the question caught him off guard. On one side he had to present that he wants to have seniors making less than $50000 be income tax exempt, but also had to say he is in favor or rolling back tx cuts on investments (i think that was his stance, correct me if I am wrong). He didnt have enough info to fully answer it. If she had said the elderly couple made

[NorthSideSox72]

As I've said before, I believe caucuses favor Edwards and Clinton, especially in a close race.

Iowa seems to say otherwise. So do the major union endorsements that Obama has gotten - those are reliable voters and good organizers.

 

Edwards' high standing in the two polls is a surprise though, and he will also be popular with some of the smaller unions that didn't do an endorsement. I'd say that Edwards and Obama will be most favored in the caucus format.

 

Keep in mind too that unlike Iowa, there are not the folks like Richardson, Dodd and Biden who will routinely have some small support but not 15%, to throw around. All that are left outside the big 3 are Kucinich and Gravel, and frankly I doubt either will get more than 2 or 3% anywhere.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Iowa seems to say otherwise.

OOPS!!! I was typing that late last night, must have been more tired than I thought. i meant to say a caucus favors Edwards and OBAMA (not Clinton) because I believe if you haven't voted for her already, you are against her.

[BigSqwert]

One thing that popped up in my head regarding last night's debate was the question on strengths and weaknesses. I thought only Obama actually gave a weakness while the other 2 spun an actual strength to make it look like a weakness. I found it lame that they couldn't answer that question honestly. I couldn't help but to roll my eyes when I heard the other 2.

 

To paraphrase

 

Hillary: I get I too impatient because I care so much.

Edwards: I'm too empathetic, making me try too hard to fight for the underdog.

Obama: I am disorganized when it comes to paperwork, schedules, etc.

Edited January 16, 2008 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

One thing that popped up in my head regarding last night's debate was the question on strengths and weaknesses. I thought only Obama actually gave a weakness while the other 2 spun an actual strength to make it look like a weakness. I found it lame that they couldn't answer that question honestly. I couldn't help but to roll my eyes when I heard the other 2.

 

To paraphrase

 

Hillary: I get I too impatient because I care so much.

Edwards: I'm too empathetic, making me try too hard to fight for the underdog.

Obama: I am disorganized when it comes to paperwork, schedules, etc.

Well, that is what you're supposed to do when you're in a job interview, and that's what a debate is, really. I guess I don't find anything wrong with it.

 

[BigSqwert]

Well, that is what you're supposed to do when you're in a job interview, and that's what a debate is, really. I guess I don't find anything wrong with it.

Clinton and Edwards sounded like typical politicians. Just another example of why myself and many others find Obama refreshing.

[YASNY]

Clinton and Edwards sounded like typical politicians. Just another example of why myself and many others find Obama refreshing.

 

I suspect you heard Clinton and Edwards sound like typical politicians and heard Obama sound like, well, refreshing. I didn't see the debate, but I'd guess that those that support the other two would paraphrase quite differently.

[BigSqwert]

I suspect you heard Clinton and Edwards sound like typical politicians and heard Obama sound like, well, refreshing. I didn't see the debate, but I'd guess that those that support the other two would paraphrase quite differently.

In all honesty I think all 3 had good performances overall. But I found their actual responses to this question....

 

Obama

And as I indicated before, my greatest weakness, I think, is when it comes to -- I'll give you a very good example.

 

I ask my staff member to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it because I will lose it. You know, the --- you know...

 

And my desk and my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff.

And that's not trivial; I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done, and that's why we run not only a good campaign, but a good U.S. Senate office.

 

Edwards

I think weakness, I sometimes have a very powerful emotional response to pain that I see around me, when I see a man like Donnie Ingram (ph), who I met a few months ago in South Carolina, who worked for 33 years in the mill, reminded me very much of the kind of people that I grew up with, who's about to lose his job, has no idea where he's going to go, what he's going to do.

 

I mean, his dignity and self-respect is at issue. And I feel that in a really personal way and in a very emotional way. And I think sometimes that can undermine what you need to do.

 

Clinton

I get impatient. I get, you know, really frustrated when people don't seem to understand that we can do so much more to help each other. Sometimes I come across that way. I admit that. I get very concerned about, you know, pushing further and faster than perhaps people are ready to go.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

In all honesty I think all 3 had good performances overall. But I found their actual responses to this question....

 

Obama

Edwards

Clinton

Those were indeed lame from Edwards and Clinton, but, I think the best part was during the rebuttles on that question. Clinton leapt at the opportunity to use Obama's answer and another quote of his about being a CEO not a COO to say that a Prez needs to know how to run the bureaucracry... and Obama's response was great. Got good laughs from the crowd and from Edwards as well. If you have the text handy Sqwert, maybe you can find that part?

 

[BigSqwert]

Clinton

But I think that, you know, there is a difference here. I do think that being president is the chief executive officer. I respect what Barack said about setting the vision, setting the tone, bringing people together. But I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy.

 

You've got to pick good people, certainly, but you have to hold them accountable every single day.

We've seen the results of a president who, frankly, failed at that. You know, he went in to office saying he was going to have the kind of Harvard Business School CEO model where he'd set the tone, he'd set the goals and then everybody else would have to implement it.

 

And we saw the failures. We saw the failures along the Gulf Coast with, you know, people who were totally incompetent and insensitive failing to help our fellow Americans. We've seen the failures with holding the administration accountable with the no-bid contracts and the cronyism.

 

So I do think you have to do both. It's a really hard job, and in America we put the head of state and the head of government together in one person.

 

But I think you've got to set the tone, you've got to set the vision, you've got to set the goals, you've got to bring the country together.

 

And then you do have to manage and operate and hold that bureaucracy accountable to get the results you're trying to achieve.

 

Russert

Senator Obama, Senator Clinton invoked your name. I'll give you a chance to respond.

 

Obama

Well, there's no doubt that you've got to be a good manager. And that's not what I was arguing. The point, in terms of bringing together a team, is that you get the best people and you're able to execute and hold them accountable.

 

But I think that there's something, if we're going to evaluate George Bush and his failures as president, that I think are much more important. He was very efficient. He was on time all the time, and you know, and had...

 

You know, I'm sure he never lost a paper. I'm sure he knows where it is. What he could not do is to listen to perspectives that didn't agree with his ideological predispositions.

 

What he could not do is to bring in different people with different perspectives and get them to work together.

What he could not do is to manage the effort to make sure that the American people understood that, if we're going to go into war, that there are going to be consequences and there are going to be costs.

 

And we have to be able to communicate what those costs are; and to make absolutely certain that, if we're going to make a decision to send our young men and women into harm's way, that it's based on the best intelligence and that we've asked tough questions before we went into fight.

 

I mean, those are the kinds of failures that have to do with judgment. They have to do with vision, the capacity to inspire people. They don't have to do with whether or not he was managing the bureaucracy properly.

 

That's not to deny that there has to be strong management skills in the presidency. It is to say that what has been missing is the ability to bring people together, to mobilize the country, to move us in a better direction, and to be straight with the American people.

 

That's how you get the American people involved.

 

 

LINK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22682821/page/8/

[YASNY]

In all honesty I think all 3 had good performances overall. But I found their actual responses to this question....

 

Obama

Edwards

Clinton

 

I read each response one after the other, then read each of them again. I heard Obama say he was an unorganized slob and Hillary say she was the pushy b**** a lot of us think she is. Edwards answer was by far the best in my opoinion, and I don't like the man at all.

 

Bueauty in the eye of the beholder apparently is transferable to audio as well.

[YASNY]

Pardon my typos.

[BigSqwert]

Edwards answer was by far the best in my opoinion, and I don't like the man at all.

I agree that his answer sounded great. That wasn't my point. He really didn't give us a "weakness". Caring too much isn't a weakness.

[YASNY]

I agree that his answer sounded great. That wasn't my point. He really didn't give us a "weakness". Caring too much isn't a weakness.

 

On one hand, I can see your point. On the other, letting emotion get in the way during decision making can definitely be a weakness.

[mr_genius]

I agree that his answer sounded great. That wasn't my point. He really didn't give us a "weakness". Caring too much isn't a weakness.

 

I thought it was the worst answer. His "mill stories" are worse than Guiliani constantly talking about when he was mayor on sept11, 2001.

[kapkomet]

I agree that his answer sounded great. That wasn't my point. He really didn't give us a "weakness". Caring too much isn't a weakness.

It is, if it limits your effectiveness to get something done.

[NorthSideSox72]

On one hand, I can see your point. On the other, letting emotion get in the way during decision making can definitely be a weakness.

Which would indicate that Edwards' and Clinton's answers were the worst of the bunch - they basically said they get too involved, too emotional.

 

Basically, Obama gave the more honest but less politically savvy response. Edwards and Clinton gave the textbook responses.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I thought it was the worst answer. His "mill stories" are worse than Guiliani constantly talking about when he was mayor on sept11, 2001.

Yes, I've pointed that out before as well. Edwards' Son Of A Millworker spiel is as instinctive for him as 9/11 is for Rudy.

 

[mr_genius]

job interview:

 

Question: So, whats your biggest flaw?

 

Answer: That I work too hard and do to great a job.

 

[BigSqwert]

And wouldn't you know Hillary is already using Obama's response against him.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...nagement-style/

Edited January 16, 2008 by BigSqwert