PDA

View Full Version : Did anyone see the Democratic forum last night?


HippityHop
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:33 PM
I haven't seen it yet but from what I've heard, Hillary got her ass handed to her several times. Is this true?

griffin
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:36 PM
The version I heard (and I did not watch) was that the other candidates spent most of their time attacking her. Opinions have varied as to how well she came off in the face of it.

Pureracket
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:42 PM
Intelligence + fairness = change http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/tmjtalk/hillpost.jpg

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:45 PM
Basically Edwards and Obama spent the night taking shots at her. Too little too late, at this point. What's sad is that instead of speaking truth to power, they came off as a bunch of high schoolers.

samsung101
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:51 PM
She wasn't attacked.
She was the frontrunner of a party, getting the
attention she should have all along from the other
candidates. Who to this point have used soft gloves
with her.


The moderators also finally realized people can see
through their inherent bias towards the Democrats.
So, once in a while, they need to look 'fair', and
ask things in a little harsher tone. About 1/10th of
the angst they give the GOP in these things.


The other guys finally figured out they better go
after the frontrunner. There have always been plenty
of things they could say about her, ask her, point out
to the public, and they haven't. They're afraid. They're
all auditioning for the VP spot too. They need to be careful.
Can't upset Hillary or Bill too much.


Her fundraising tangles with Hsu and others, her flip flops
on Iraq and military, her tax hike ideas, her entitlement program
ideas, etc. It's a long list.


Hillary did okay. Not great. She was a little flustered.She
too was used to the velvet glove treatment all this time.


Can you see Rudy take her on in a debate?
Even Romney, he's nice and polished, but, he's got zingers too.

Wannabeknowitall
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:56 PM
I go to Drexel and I didn't even want to see it.
I can read :bs: from a mile away and I'm voting for Hillary regardless of what these the other candidates try.

And although Barack has tried desparately to get the young vote in the last couple of months, we're just not feelin him here.
He can thank the Devil, I mean mayor John Street for that.

HippityHop
Oct 31st, 2007, 09:57 PM
I actually forgot about it or I would have gotten it on DVR. I'm sure that it will be on CSPAN or MSNBC at least five more times in the next few days.

It seems that everytime you look around either the Repubs or the Demos are holding some kind of "forum" so in many ways they are something of a letdown when you do finally get to watch.

Wannabeknowitall
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:05 PM
Can you see Rudy take her on in a debate?
Even Romney, he's nice and polished, but, he's got zingers too.

I can see Rudy taking her on but which one has more dirt out in the open in their time in office in NY?
I'm gonna have to say Rudy. He's going to have to tread lightly.

Romney could take on Hillary and win but it doesn't change the fact that America isn't ready for a Mormon president.
I do not trust Mormons in general. I do believe estenially that every religion has some smidgen of truth but their view on blacks just less than 30 years ago has me worried if a Mormon president would even care about most minorities.

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:08 PM
I was so impressed with John Edwards last night. I've been reading more about his positions today and I'm leaning more and more towards voting for him.

I thought they made Hillary look like a fool last night on many fronts. They were not "attacking" her. That's the spin the media (and her people) have put on it. They were pointing out how their positions differ.

She looked REALLY bad twice.

(1) On her vote to declare part of Iran's military "terrorists." A frist step towards war with Iran. The excuse that she voted that way to "open tough negotiations" gave an empty ring...because that was her same excuse for her Iraq vote. Fool me once...I guess not with Hillary apparently.

(2) She was very evasive in answering a question on her position on driver's licenses for non-registered immigrants. She gave the impression of changing her position on the issue during the debate. In reality, it appeared she was being tricky with the language she was using and got busted.

I watched with a very open mind, as I have not decided who I'm voting for. I thought Hillary looked AWFUL, I think Barack has no meat in his answers, and I thought John Edwards gave very thoughtful and reasoned responses. Kucinich is a little left for me. He's getting unfairly tagged with the UFO comment, which actually originated from the question he was asked. I like Biden on a lot of issues. Chris Dodd was alright but nothing special. I like Bill Richardson, but he's not polished enough to pull the general election off.

Basically, I watched the entire thing and for the first time I feel like voting for one of them. John Edwards.

SF

Apoleb
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:26 PM
On her vote to declare part of Iran's military "terrorists." A frist step towards war with Iran.

How is that so? Voting that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is "terrorist" means that she wants to go to war with Iran? Iran has been branded a terrorist state for years now. I don't believe there are any serious considerations, at least for the moment, to go to a broad war with Iran, even among the most hawkish elements of the Repubs.

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:32 PM
Adding a sovereign nation's military to the executive order of "terrorist organizations" is definitely a first.

In an environment when it's actually having to be debated whether the President even has to ask Congress for approval to strike against Iran this vote is, at minimum, irresponsible.

By slapping another nation's military as a "terrorist organization" you take any strike against that group out of the realm of an act of "war" and move it into the realm of "police action." Thereby taking an end run around having to go to Congress to strike (or at least giving them an excuse to try).

SF

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:38 PM
How is that so? Voting that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is "terrorist" means that she wants to go to war with Iran? Iran has been branded a terrorist state for years now. I don't believe there are any serious considerations, at least for the moment, to go to a broad war with Iran, even among the most hawkish elements of the Repubs.

It's been branded a sponsor of terrorism, not a terrorist state. Under current US policy, there's no such thing as "terrorist states"- that would give them a legitimacy that Cheney & co. do not want them to have. In particular, it would put "terrorist" troops captured (like the Taliban) under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention.

And even it were so, I'd wager than more people worldwide view America as the terrorist state.

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:50 PM
Also, the Kyl Lieberman Amendment calls for the "use of military instruments with respect to the Government of Iran and its pr oxies." [see Section (b)(4).]

I have a BIG problem with that language and anyone who would sign on to that position with Bush in the White House.

SF

Rollo
Oct 31st, 2007, 10:57 PM
As sfselesfan mentioned already , Hillary really blew it when she was asked if she approved of giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. She more or less said yes, then backtracked on her answer with a "that's not what I said" routine.

She gave the same type of answer when asked if she would make her records open as First Lady from the White House years.

RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the President not be made available until 2012. Would you lift that ban?CLINTON: Well, that’s not my decision to make [ed. note: if she were elected president, that would be her decision] and I don’t believe that any President or First Lady ever has, but certainly we’ll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.So she's saying this is Bill's decision to make----she can't convince him to change his mind?


Down the road the archives issue is small beans, but her remarks on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants will be a general election issue.

Democrats are letting the Clintons lead them into yet another election defeat
when any other candidate (Edwards, Gore) could easily win.

Nominate Hillary and they will deserve the beating they will likely get.

No more Clintons and no more Bushs-please!

Pureracket
Oct 31st, 2007, 11:13 PM
:lol:

Democrats are letting the Clintons lead them into yet another election defeat
when any other candidate (Edwards, Gore) could easily win.

Nominate Hillary and they will deserve the beating they will likely get.

No more Clintons and no more Bushs-please!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You actually think the Americans people are dumb enough to focus on this Drivers License issue with thousands of young American men and women dying, Republicans resigning like rats from a sinking ship, and the ones who aren't retiring getting caught in public places with men when they're not emailing/text messaging young boys? :haha:

You all are going to have to find something a lot more intense than gay marriage and flag burning this time around, Rollo.

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 11:17 PM
:lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You actually think the Americans people are dumb enough to focus on this Drivers License issue with thousands of young American men and women dying, Republicans resigning like rats from a sinking ship, and the ones who aren't retiring getting caught in public places with men when they're not emailing young boys? :haha:

You all are going to have to find something a lot more intense than gay marriage and flag burning this time around, Rollo.

Unfortunately, a lot of us dems are starting to think Hillary is no better than the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy. That doesn't bode well for the general election if she goes up against a social moderate like Rudy (or even Romney...who will move to the middle if he gets past the primary).

Someone like Edwards would KILL either Romney or Rudy in a general election, because he makes sense and is speaking honestly.

SF

Donny
Oct 31st, 2007, 11:20 PM
:lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You actually think the Americans people are dumb enough to focus on this Drivers License issue with thousands of young American men and women dying, Republicans resigning like rats from a sinking ship, and the ones who aren't retiring getting caught in public places with men when they're not emailing young boys? :haha:

You all are going to have to find something a lot more intense than gay marriage and flag burning this time around, Rollo.

Yes. Yes, they are.

Pureracket
Oct 31st, 2007, 11:28 PM
Unfortunately, a lot of us dems are starting to think Hillary is no better than the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy. That doesn't bode well for the general election if she goes up against a social moderate like Rudy (or even Romney...who will move to the middle if he gets past the primary).

Someone like Edwards would KILL either Romney or Rudy in a general election, because he makes sense and is speaking honestly.

SF
If she's the Democratic nominee, I trust that that position will be strenghthened even more than it is now. Bush's strong point was his foreign policy. He was elected based on that and the gay marriage issue.

The conservatives are going to be hard pressed to vote for a Mormon (who, to most of them, aren't Christian) and a candidate who has divorce, a soft record on abortion, gun control and gay rights.

I actually like Edwards too. It's a tossup between him and Hillary @ this point. He looked brilliant and poised in that debate last night.

I will support the Democratic candidate, though.

sfselesfan
Oct 31st, 2007, 11:36 PM
I will support the Democratic candidate, though.

I probably will too, but I want someone that agrees with me.

SF

HippityHop
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:06 AM
I was so impressed with John Edwards last night. I've been reading more about his positions today and I'm leaning more and more towards voting for him.

I thought they made Hillary look like a fool last night on many fronts. They were not "attacking" her. That's the spin the media (and her people) have put on it. They were pointing out how their positions differ.

She looked REALLY bad twice.

(1) On her vote to declare part of Iran's military "terrorists." A frist step towards war with Iran. The excuse that she voted that way to "open tough negotiations" gave an empty ring...because that was her same excuse for her Iraq vote. Fool me once...I guess not with Hillary apparently.

(2) She was very evasive in answering a question on her position on driver's licenses for non-registered immigrants. She gave the impression of changing her position on the issue during the debate. In reality, it appeared she was being tricky with the language she was using and got busted.

I watched with a very open mind, as I have not decided who I'm voting for. I thought Hillary looked AWFUL, I think Barack has no meat in his answers, and I thought John Edwards gave very thoughtful and reasoned responses. Kucinich is a little left for me. He's getting unfairly tagged with the UFO comment, which actually originated from the question he was asked. I like Biden on a lot of issues. Chris Dodd was alright but nothing special. I like Bill Richardson, but he's not polished enough to pull the general election off.

Basically, I watched the entire thing and for the first time I feel like voting for one of them. John Edwards.

SF


Was it in the same ballpark as "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is?

HippityHop
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:09 AM
As sfselesfan mentioned already , Hillary really blew it when she was asked if she approved of giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. She more or less said yes, then backtracked on her answer with a "that's not what I said" routine.

She gave the same type of answer when asked if she would make her records open as First Lady from the White House years.

RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the President not be made available until 2012. Would you lift that ban?CLINTON: Well, thatís not my decision to make [ed. note: if she were elected president, that would be her decision] and I donít believe that any President or First Lady ever has, but certainly weíll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.So she's saying this is Bill's decision to make----she can't convince him to change his mind?


Down the road the archives issue is small beans, but her remarks on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants will be a general election issue.

Democrats are letting the Clintons lead them into yet another election defeat
when any other candidate (Edwards, Gore) could easily win.

Nominate Hillary and they will deserve the beating they will likely get.

No more Clintons and no more Bushs-please!

Agreed. It will probably be Hillary for 8 years. Then we'll have Jeb Bush for 8 years. And when that's over we'll probably have Chelsea for 8 years. :help:

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:32 PM
Was it in the same ballpark as "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is?

Exactly, it was not as clever as Bill though. Experienced litigators advise "never gild the lily." If you say what you want, don't go back and try to explain it more. She shot herself in the foot by doing that. The record of what she said was there and she should have left it alone. By going back to try and explain what she said, she looked foolish. Bill never would have made that mistake. Edwards would never make that mistake either (he's clearly sharp).

SF

Pureracket
Nov 1st, 2007, 04:38 PM
Exactly, it was not as clever as Bill though. Experienced litigators advise "never gild the lily." If you say what you want, don't go back and try to explain it more. She shot herself in the foot by doing that. The record of what she said was there and she should have left it alone. By going back to try and explain what she said, she looked foolish. Bill never would have made that mistake. Edwards would never make that mistake either (he's clearly sharp).

SFEdwards has wonderful poise, but he's going to need to be more ferocious in these debates.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 1st, 2007, 05:14 PM
Unfortunately, a lot of us dems are starting to think Hillary is no better than the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy. That doesn't bode well for the general election if she goes up against a social moderate like Rudy (or even Romney...who will move to the middle if he gets past the primary).

Someone like Edwards would KILL either Romney or Rudy in a general election, because he makes sense and is speaking honestly.

SF

If making sense and speaking honestly is all it took to win the general election of presidency for the US then Al Gore would be president right.

Hmm...
Sometimes honesty is not the best policy especially if your Edwards.
I get a 400 dollar haircut but spend less than 10 bucks on my 30th anniversary with my wife.
National poverty tour but selling his house for 5 million bucks.

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 05:25 PM
If making sense and speaking honestly is all it took to win the general election of presidency for the US then Al Gore would be president right.

Hmm...
Sometimes honesty is not the best policy especially if your Edwards.
I get a 400 dollar haircut but spend less than 10 bucks on my 30th anniversary with my wife.
National poverty tour but selling his house for 5 million bucks.

Why is it hypocritical for people who have money to believe in social justice? You're using circular reasoning. No rational person expects Edwards to take a vow of poverty.

SF

griffin
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:10 PM
Why is it hypocritical for people who have money to believe in social justice? You're using circular reasoning. No rational person expects Edwards to take a vow of poverty.



Of course not, but it does make him easy to lampoon and discredit - not unlike the way people have been able to undermine Gore's basic message about, and the reality of climate change by pointing to how much juice his mansion uses.

Governor Hairdo Romney would have a very hard time running back to center should he win the nomination. He'll tone his act down a bit, but he's made enough noise on the national stage about how conservative his is that people won't forget it - and if he tries he'll alienate the people on the right who are a bit suspicious of him to begin with.

Rollo
Nov 1st, 2007, 06:55 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: You actually think the Americans people are dumb enough to focus on this Drivers License issue with thousands of young American men and women dying, Republicans resigning like rats from a sinking ship, and the ones who aren't retiring getting caught in public places with men when they're not emailing/text messaging young boys? :haha:


No one's gone broke underestimating people's stupidity Pureracket.

Like it or not-Americans care about the issue of illegal aliens. In states like Florida and the southwest it may well be a crucial issue.

By the way, 75% of New Yorkers are against giving out driver's licenses like Clinton kind of sort of endorsed.

You all are going to have to find something a lot more intense than gay marriage and flag burning this time around, Rollo.

I'm not going to have to do anything. I've voted for Clinton, Bush, and Ralph Nadar in past elections, so I'm beyond pegging like someone who will support the Democratic (or Republican) nominee no matter who they are.

Can you say that about yourself?

My point was that Democrats have had a talent for shooting themselves in the foot in presidential elctions.

Had the Democrats had the guts to force Clinton from the White House in the late 80s Al Gore would have been President and easily won the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as a martyr.

2004 was hopeless from the start.

Surely though 2008 is VERY winnable for Democrats. Hillary is not electable though. So who are Democrats going for?-Clinton.

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:10 PM
No one's gone broke underestimating people's stupidity Pureracket.

Like it or not-Americans care about the issue of illegal aliens. In states like Florida and the southwest it may well be a crucial issue.

By the way, 75% of New Yorkers are against giving out driver's licenses like Clinton kind of sort of endorsed.

The thing is, I kind of have to agree with Governor Spitzer on this one. From a law enforcement perspective, it makes the tracking of "illegal aliens" much easier. Until laws are passed on a federal level to deal with the problem (deport them or give them amnesty) it falls upon the states to deal with them. Any security risk they pose is better monitored by giving them some form of identification. Spitzer has proposed three forms of "licenses." A driver's license, an ID card for citizens, and an ID card for non-citizens. As someone who works on the policy end of criminal legislation, that makes a lot of sense from a law enforcement perspective.

So, I agree with Hillary on this issue, I just wish she would take a position and not try to duck it. By ducking it, she doesn't explain the reasoning behind it and the public at large remains confused. Candidates like Edwards, or even Biden, take a position and explain themselves. Thereby educating the public at large. That's why I see them as better candidates than Hillary. Just like I though Howard Dean was superior to John Kerry.

SF

Rollo
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:23 PM
The thing is, I kind of have to agree with Governor Spitzer on this one. From a law enforcement perspective, it makes the tracking of "illegal aliens" much easier. Until laws are passed on a federal level to deal with the problem (deport them or give them amnesty) it falls upon the states to deal with them. Any security risk they pose is better monitored by giving them some form of identification. Spitzer has proposed three forms of "licenses." A driver's license, an ID card for citizens, and an ID card for non-citizens. As someone who works on the policy end of criminal legislation, that makes a lot of sense from a law enforcement perspective.

So, I agree with Hillary on this issue, I just wish she would take a position and not try to duck it. By ducking it, she doesn't explain the reasoning behind it and the public at large remains confused. Candidates like Edwards, or even Biden, take a position and explain themselves. Thereby educating the public at large. That's why I see them as better candidates than Hillary. Just like I though Howard Dean was superior to John Kerry.

SF

I'm in 100% agreement with you. Personally I'd allow all illegal aliens here before a certain date to be eligible for full citenzenship, make a policy for those entering later, and enforce it strongly.

It's not a popular position though. And as you've pointed out, it was Hillary's ducking the question that hurts her.

sfselesfan
Nov 1st, 2007, 07:53 PM
I'm in 100% agreement with you. Personally I'd allow all illegal aliens here before a certain date to be eligible for full citenzenship, make a policy for those entering later, and enforce it strongly.

It's not a popular position though. And as you've pointed out, it was Hillary's ducking the question that hurts her.

Glad we're of like minds on this issue.

That's exactly her problem. She's trying so hard to come off as a good leader that she's not being one. You have to be able to defend your positions, even if unpopular, if you think it's for the good of the country. You can't always be all things to all people.

SF

Monica_Rules
Nov 2nd, 2007, 01:31 AM
I saw bits of the debate on the news here in the UK this morning, looked like Obama and Edwards were gunning for Clinton but that was fair dues.

How has it changed the race? Does Hilary look like she'll win the democrat vote?

Oh and If Rudolph Gulianni got the republican vote, would he stand a chance of winning the New York state in the presedential election?

HippityHop
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:06 PM
I guess that Hillary didn't like having her feet held to the fire. Now she's crying that the mean old bad men ganged up on little bitty female me. :rolleyes:

She wants to be president of the United States but she can't take the heat of being challenged to defend her ideas? :help:

Scotso
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:27 PM
Edwards comes off to me as a power-hungry mild megalomaniac. I think he's a practiced liar, I don't like him at all. I also can't approve of someone who feels their political ambitions are more important than their wife.

sfselesfan
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:32 PM
http://johnedwards.com/watch/politics-of-parsing/

My sentiments exactly.

SF

griffin
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:34 PM
I guess that Hillary didn't like having her feet held to the fire. Now she's crying that the mean old bad men ganged up on little bitty female me. :rolleyes:

I think it's strategic. Edwards and Obama both made a lot of noise about wanting to run a "diffferent kind of campaign" They wanted to be positive! :angel: They wanted to talk about their vision! :hearts:

but what they REALLY want is to win! So, the poll numbers drop, so do the gloves. Clinton and her people are just reminding people that they changed their tune - and trying to distract people from the criticism itself ;)

Me, I think someone should hold another forum so they can debate it...

samsung101
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:46 PM
Hillary is playing the 'gender' card.
Why not?
It's getting old though.

She's done it before.
Her lackeys in the media have played it for
her as well.

So, either she's poor Hillary, too quaint to take
the big, bad boy network scuffle, or she's tough Hillary,
and she can take them all out with one punch.


Edwards has zero shot. He was already the VP candidate,
and didn't even pull in his own state last time. He wasn't
going to get re-elected as a Senator either. He's irrelevant.


Obama, he's wasted a lot of time. He's supposed to be the #1
rival for Hillary, on what? NOthing. He doesn't take on her policies,
ideas, past work, speeches, nothing. He has plenty he could take on,
starting with her campaign finance issues for years.


HIllary essentially said she is for illegal immigration reform that is
very pro-open borders and pro-illegal alien. Most Americans oppose this.
Russert asked a legitimate issue, one that was big news this week.

Rudy and Romney and Fred oppose Spitzer plan. It is going to be a huge issue
in the 2008 campaign. None of the top GOP candidates has the Bush or
McCain immigration reform policy in mind - they all oppose it.

HippityHop
Nov 2nd, 2007, 08:49 PM
I think it's strategic. Edwards and Obama both made a lot of noise about wanting to run a "diffferent kind of campaign" They wanted to be positive! :angel: They wanted to talk about their vision! :hearts:

but what they REALLY want is to win! So, the poll numbers drop, so do the gloves. Clinton and her people are just reminding people that they changed their tune - and trying to distract people from the criticism itself ;)

Me, I think someone should hold another forum so they can debate it...

You can bet your last bottle of emergency vodka that they will. :lol:

ptkten
Nov 2nd, 2007, 10:52 PM
I saw bits of the debate on the news here in the UK this morning, looked like Obama and Edwards were gunning for Clinton but that was fair dues.

How has it changed the race? Does Hilary look like she'll win the democrat vote?

Oh and If Rudolph Gulianni got the republican vote, would he stand a chance of winning the New York state in the presedential election?

Rudy won't win New York, especially if it's against Hillary. There was a poll out recently that had her up 51-42 percent against him. The reason it's dangerous for Rudy to win the Republican nomination however is that he will run/is running very close with Democrats in other states with large Catholic populations like New Jersey and Pennsylvania. His socially liberal/economically conservative positions will help him in the northeast, and if the Democrats lose those two states, there's NO chance they win the election.

Monica_Rules
Nov 3rd, 2007, 02:55 AM
Thanx for the feedback.

Zummi
Nov 3rd, 2007, 05:24 AM
I can't believe some people actually think Al Gore or John Edwards would have a better shot at the Presidential race than Hillary. Would that be the same Al Gore the Democrats ran in 2000 or the same John Edwards who was on the presidential ticket in 2004? Last I checked, they both lost...

A Gallup poll from last month, done after Gore's Nobel prize announcement, found that 54% of Americans did not want him to run for President. As for Edwards, he would be torn to shreds by the GOP smear machine should he be the Democratic nominee. His transition from moderate Southern senator to the most liberal of the main Democratic candidates with his strident class warfare rhetoric will open him to all sort of charges as a flip-flopper... can anyone say Kerry redux?

Hillary has her negatives and will undoubtedly be a drag on downticket Democrats. I could definitely forsee the Democrats losing the House or possibly even the Senate with Hillary on top of the ticket especially given the numerous Democratic reps who will be defending seats in moderate to conservative districts in places like Florida, Kansas, Texas, Georgia etc. However, I don't see Obama or Edwards doing any better either. Edwards might seem more electable at present, mainly on account of him being Southern and white, but one year from now after the Swiftboaters have had their way with him, we might be singing an entirely different tune...

The advantage with Hillary is that her well-oiled campaign machine is certainly capable of fighting fire with fire. You know she's not going to lay down quietly and let the Republican attack dogs get away with defining her message. There's not much they can do anyway - the haters already hate her and won't be voting for her in any case. For Hillary to win, all she has to do is first, win every state Kerry carried in 2004. This is definitely doable, even against a moderate one-trick pony like Rudy "all-9/11-all-the-time" Giuliani. And then, all she would need is one other major swing state - say Ohio - and guess who's in the White House again...

Scotso
Nov 3rd, 2007, 03:51 PM
Hillary is a great candidate. She's strong and has basically sticked to her guns for years and years, you can't really call her a flip-flopper. She's also extremely popular among Democrats. Yes, Republicans hate her, but they wouldn't vote for any of the other Democrats anyway, I think she's the best shot the Democrats have. I really can't understand why people think she's such a weakness. She's exactly what the Democrats need, a candidate that has some balls and won't give in to pressure.

kiwifan
Nov 3rd, 2007, 04:03 PM
Is asking Clinton about inconsistencies in her voting record/actions really attacking her?

:shrug:

Rollo
Nov 3rd, 2007, 05:01 PM
Posted by Zummi I can't believe some people actually think Al Gore or John Edwards would have a better shot at the Presidential race than Hillary. Would that be the same Al Gore the Democrats ran in 2000 or the same John Edwards who was on the presidential ticket in 2004? Last I checked, they both lost...



Yes, Gore lost in 2000-but why did he lose? He lost in large part because many people were pissed off at the Clintons. Not angry enough to want Clinton out of office, mind you, because the economy was going great. So people waited to take it out on Al Gore.

Gore still won the popular vote.

The 2000 election wouldn't even have been close had Clinton done the right thing and resigned or Democrats told him to go. Then Clinton would have been a martyr to his supporters and Gore wouldn't have paid the price.

Instead the Clintons clung to power and Democrats paid the price.

What makes you think Hillary is electable?

A. 40 to 45% won't vote for her at all-period.B. That leaves a narrow window for victory.

B. The other factor never discussed in regard to her is this: to vote for Hillary a voter will not only have to like her, the voter will also have to like Bill.

I know loads of people who love her, hate him-or love Bill but wouldn't vote for her in a million years.

C. A lot people are sick of political dynasties. This Bush-Clinton thing has gone on for 20 years now-are we India or Pakistan?

D. A Democrat is going to have to break the solid south to win the election.
Virginia is a possibility-but she's got the same problems winning in the south that Kerry had. At least Edwards might carry North Carolina.

Pureracket
Nov 3rd, 2007, 07:12 PM
Rollo,
Was it really about Clinton? Aren't all you political pundits simply refusing to admit the obvious? The election victory for the(you) Bush Republicans was due to the clever political posturing of Karl Rove and his appeal to the rabid fanatics about gay marriage. For the first time that I can remember(maybe EVER) a president was elected without intelligence being his claim to fame.
OMG! You all voted against an administration who gave a record surplus, record jobs, welfare reform, record peace, a booming economy. Instead, you all wanted somebody who could guarantee you that gays wouldn't marry and that there would be no abortions. People can't find work, we're in an unwinnable war, and we refuse to give children healthcare. WTF is that all about?

Ironically, since this current administration took office, gays have started marrying legally in two states, and abortions are safer and more legal now than @ any other time. Weird.

With all due respect to Martina Hingis, it seems as if the country has been "snowed" by this administration.

Rollo
Nov 3rd, 2007, 10:58 PM
Rollo,
Was it really about Clinton? Aren't all you political pundits simply refusing to admit the obvious? The election victory for the(you) Bush Republicans was due to the clever political posturing of Karl Rove and his appeal to the rabid fanatics about gay marriage. For the first time that I can remember(maybe EVER) a president was elected without intelligence being his claim to fame.
OMG! You all voted against an administration who gave a record surplus, record jobs, welfare reform, record peace, a booming economy. Instead, you all wanted somebody who could guarantee you that gays wouldn't marry and that there would be no abortions. People can't find work, we're in an unwinnable war, and we refuse to give children healthcare. WTF is that all about?

Ironically, since this current administration took office, gays have started marrying legally in two states, and abortions are safer and more legal now than @ any other time. Weird.

With all due respect to Martina Hingis, it seems as if the country has been "snowed" by this administration.
__________________


Get your facts right Pureracket. Gay marriage was not an issue in 2000--you're thinking of 2004-when Massachuesetts enacted it's law. In doing that Democrats handed the issue to Republicans on a silver platter by forcing the issue before the 2004 election. Personally I favor gay marriage, but I also have the brains to know it's not an issue I'd win an election with.

Clinton WAS an issue in 2000-gay marriage wasn't on the radar.

Before I move on let me remind you that Clinton was against gay marriage.

I'm not part of any "you" Republicans--if you'd read an earlier post I indicated
I voted for Clinton (1996) Nadar (2000) and Bush (2004).

None of those votes was "right" or "wrong"-but it what it should tell you is I'm part of the 10% of independent voters who decide elections.

Scotso
Nov 4th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Gay marriage was an issue in 2000. Your memory is faulty.

Rollo
Nov 4th, 2007, 12:15 AM
Gay marriage was an issue in 2000. Your memory is faulty.

Are you sure it's not your memory that is faulty? Prove it with some research. Gay rights might have been a minor issue-or gays in the military. Gay marriage?

It wasn't a major issue at all-it took Massachuestts making gay marriage legal in 2004 to make it someting hotly debated, as then (and only then) did conservatives come up with the idea of a constitutional amendent to ban gay marriage.

Before 2004 it was a non-issue, as you can't ban something that's already illegal.

If you don't believe me do a newspaper search.

New York Times search in 2000 for "Bush" "Gore" and "Gay marriage"--1 hit (and it's unrelated)
New York Time search in 2004 for "Bush" Kerry" and "Gay marriage" -118 hits.

There were several New Times bylines on Kerry's opposition to a ban and Bush supporting it.

I think I've proved my point.

Scotso
Nov 4th, 2007, 03:44 AM
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, and since then neocons have been using "gay marriage" to scare people into voting Republican. Just because it isn't the focus of the campaign doesn't mean that it isn't an issue.

Zummi
Nov 4th, 2007, 09:15 AM
Clinton was an issue in the 2000 election so far as it allowed George W. Bush to keep parroting that "bringing honor and dignity to the White House" line ad nauseum.

Besides the Supreme Court, Gore deserves a fair share of responsibility for blowing the 2000 election. He was leading George W. Bush in the polls throughout 1999, even after the Clinton impeachment fiasco. Clinton maintained sky-high job approval ratings - in the mid-60s - all through the years 1999 & 2000. The media turned on Gore following his thrashing of Bill Bradley in the Democratic primaries that year, in a race that many felt was very mean-spirited on Gore's part. There was the excessive media coverage of his Pinnochio problem not to mention other notable missteps like his pandering on the Elian Gonzalez issue and his dramatic and awkward debate performances. It didn't help that George W. Bush, on the other hand, was treated with kid gloves by the mainstream press. It was Gore's election to win and he blew it.

While 40-45% of the country would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances, an equal amount of the electorate would definitely not vote for any Republican candidate over her. There would only be a small pool of independent voters to work with but that would be true, not just for Hillary, but for the Republican nominee as well.

Edwards might carry North Carolina in a Presidential election?? He's currently trailing Hillary in the Democratic primary polls in that state. He can't even win among his own home state Democrats? He was chosen as Kerry's running mate in 2004 in an attempt to help him in the South. In that he was spectacularly unsuccessful; couldn't even win his own home state. And it is highly unlikely his ultra-liberal campaign message is going to gain broad support in the more conservative Southern states.

The Democrats do not need the South to win. Virginia is a few elections away from becoming competitive in Presidential elections. The Democrats need to focus on the Western states and by most accounts, they are already doing just that. States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, even Arizona would be far more fertile territory for the Democrats. Like I said before, all Hillary needs is all the Kerry blue states and a major swing state Ohio and she's in the White House again.

Rollo
Nov 4th, 2007, 11:33 AM
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, and since then neocons have been using "gay marriage" to scare people into voting Republican. Just because it isn't the focus of the campaign doesn't mean that it isn't an issue.


and Clinton voted for it-as I already mentioned. That hardly makes it a wedge issue in the 2000 election.

I'd conceded it was a background issue-but not the major one Pureracket or you seem to have thought it was.

It would be like you saying global warming was an issue in 1996. I'm sure it was for a fringe, but it looms much larger now.

If it was an issue why wasn't there media coverage of it?

Rollo
Nov 4th, 2007, 12:00 PM
Clinton was an issue in the 2000 election so far as it allowed George W. Bush to keep parroting that "bringing honor and dignity to the White House" line ad nauseum.

Agreed

Besides the Supreme Court, Gore deserves a fair share of responsibility for blowing the 2000 election. He was leading George W. Bush in the polls throughout 1999, even after the Clinton impeachment fiasco. Clinton maintained sky-high job approval ratings - in the mid-60s - all through the years 1999 & 2000.

1999 is not Election Day 2000. I seem to recall John Kerry led Bush at one point way before it mattered. The public wanted to keep Clinton in office because of the economy, but once he was leaving it was a different story.

Yes Gore bears some blame-so does Clinton, and so do Democrats for putting Clinton above the wellfare of the party.

While 40-45% of the country would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances, an equal amount of the electorate would definitely not vote for any Republican candidate over her. There would only be a small pool of independent voters to work with but that would be true, not just for Hillary, but for the Republican nominee as well.

Not exactly, because Hillary is a known personality to the public, clearly tied to the past Clinton-Bush era, while Mitt Romney couldn't be identified outside his own family and political junkies.

It gives any candidate other than Clinton more room to forge an image. If the Reupublican candidate is too abrasive independents might go for Clinton, but if he is a "uniter and not a divider" watch out.

Edwards might carry North Carolina in a Presidential election?? He's currently trailing Hillary in the Democratic primary polls in that state. He can't even win among his own home state Democrats? He was chosen as Kerry's running mate in 2004 in an attempt to help him in the South. In that he was spectacularly unsuccessful; couldn't even win his own home state. And it is highly unlikely his ultra-liberal campaign message is going to gain broad support in the more conservative Southern states.

Kerry had lost the 2004 before it started Zummi.

The Democrats do not need the South to win. Virginia is a few elections away from becoming competitive in Presidential elections. The Democrats need to focus on the Western states and by most accounts, they are already doing just that. States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, even Arizona would be far more fertile territory for the Democrats. Like I said before, all Hillary needs is all the Kerry blue states and a major swing state Ohio and she's in the White House again.


What you've outlined is a strategy-I'll grant you that. And as long as a Democrat keeps it close it can work. But it's a much better shot if she's not on the ticket.

It has a better chance of working if she doesn't promise to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens-bet that's real popular in those Western states-LOL.

And even if she doesn't "need" the south, she needs to stay competitive there to tie down Republican resources.

Question: What do all the Democrats elected in the past 40 years have in common?

Answer: They were from the South. Clinton, Carter, and Johnson had the key to unlock the solid South.


Go ahead and nominate her for all I care Zummi. Just don't say you wern't warned.

HippityHop
Nov 4th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Remember that Gore was also from the South and he could not carry his own home state. If he had, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

Rollo
Nov 4th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Remember that Gore was also from the South and he could not carry his own home state. If he had, Florida wouldn't have mattered

It's a good point you have Hippity Hop-and as Zummi wrote, Gore does bear some of the blame for losing.

There are two reasons the "Southern" theory still holds though IMO

1. Gore came a darn sight closer than Dukakis, or Mondale, or Kerry. As you know he won the popular vote.

2. He grew up in a Washington hotel more than he did in Tennessee. This had an effect on how he related to Southern voters (he sure doesn't sound Southern ala Carter and Clinton) and his home constituents.

3 more months and we should know who the two nominees are. There's a 90% it will all be over of February 5th.

Zummi
Nov 5th, 2007, 06:12 AM
Back to the Clinton-Gore 2000 thing again, Clinton maintained his high approval ratings all throughout the 2000 campaign season. It didn't change just because he wasn't running for re-election. The people who voted against Gore simply because they didn't like Clinton were not going to vote for Gore anyway. There's a name for people like that - they're called Republicans... (and Republican-leaning independents)...

At any rate, the last time a President resigned, his replacement lost the next presidential election.

Not exactly, because Hillary is a known personality to the public, clearly tied to the past Clinton-Bush era, while Mitt Romney couldn't be identified outside his own family and political junkies.

The percentage of the electorate who would vote for Romney simply because they're tired of the Clinton-Bush era as you put it will be comfortably offset by the fundamentalist Christians who will sit out the election rather than vote for the heathen Mormon...

And what exactly is the Clinton-Bush era? How can the two be lumped together? Bill Clinton remains one of the most popular living politicians in the country today, even more popular than his wife. A Gallup poll from a few months ago had his current approval ratings at 63%. If anything, people would have fonder memories of the Clinton years when compared to the last seven under Bush II. 'You' may not like the Clintons, but it's quite clear a large percentage of the electorate does not share that view.

It gives any candidate other than Clinton more room to forge an image. If the Reupublican candidate is too abrasive independents might go for Clinton, but if he is a "uniter and not a divider" watch out.

And which of the current crop of Republican candidates can claim the mantle of "uniter not a divider"?? This might be Hillary's biggest break of them all - the ineptitude of the current GOP batch. None of them come sans baggage...

Kerry had lost the 2004 before it started Zummi.

For all his faults, Kerry still almost ended up in the White House, the election was that close. Polls were neck-and-neck all the way through November. Fifty something thousand votes in Ohio out of over 5 million cast in that state made all the difference. Bush was vulnerable in 2004 - the Democrats messed up by nominating the wrong guy...

Question: What do all the Democrats elected in the past 40 years have in common?
Answer: They were from the South. Clinton, Carter, and Johnson had the key to unlock the solid South.

And prior to 2000, no Republican in the 20th century was ever elected President without winning California. But like they say, times change...

Go ahead and nominate her for all I care Zummi. Just don't say you wern't warned.

For all I know, Hillary might very well lose the 2008 election. I never said she wouldn't. The Democrats always start with a natural disadvantage thanks to the current electoral system and they have far fewer "safe" Democratic states especially when compared to the Republican ones. My point all along has been that neither Obama nor Edwards would be likely to do any better than Hillary. Obama's recent missteps are indicative that he just may not yet be quite ready for prime time while the more seasoned Edwards will most certainly be dogged by criticisms of his penchant for bending the truth - can someone say Slick Johnnie? - not to mention opening up the ticket to charges of flip-flopping and hypocrisy. No Democratic candidate is blemish-free. Hillary has just as good a chance as any of the rest of them...