I watched the first couple of Dems debates, then skipped most of them - too busy with work and stuff - then tuned in last night for the ABC/Facebook double-feature. Brief thoughts:
The GOP debate was surreal. A bunch of Grumpy Old White Men spewing nonsense and nobody called them on it (the same conversation could easily have occurred at a neighborhood bar or at a strip-club and would not seem out of place). McCain and Thompson looked like the two old geezers sitting on the balcony on the Muppet Show set, and were just as coherent.
Romney was like a deer in the headlights, insulted that someone may challenge his complete lack of idea what he's doing. Big Pharma are good guys, trying to make medicines for all of us?! Sure, the scientists working there - the employees - may have lofty motivations, but their bosses are just in it for profit with approximately zero concern for the sick people of the world. And 47 million Americans refuse to buy health insurance?! Sure, I refuse it, too, when the monthly bill is more than a grand and my bank account is in the red. Is everyone earning less than a million per minute prohibited from ever being seen by Romney?
To say that these guys are out of touch is putting it too nicely. They just dropped from Tralfamador and the first hour of their English lesson was taped and put on TV for all to see. If the Saturday Night Live crew memorizes the transcript with no alterations and performs the skit, it would be just as loony and funny as the debate itself.
What we saw was the last remnants of the Republican party. Normal people who, for reasons of personal or family history, voted Republican for many years, are leaving the party in droves because there is nothing there for anyone but the professional GOP operatives, the uber-rich and the religious nutcases. What is left was on TV last night and is absolutely pathetic. They need to go back to the drawing board and redesign the party from scratch if they want to remain a viable party in the future. They are still attacking strawman ideas that Dems left behind 60-80 years ago - because they cannot attack what the Democrats are standing for today.
The one that worries me is Huckabee. On a very charitable day I vehemently disagree with the guy 99.9%. But, unlike the others, he knows how to talk, he is a great debater, he is comfortable, confident and likable and, if you are not aware that definitions of all the words he uses are not the definitions found in Websters or Oxford Dictionary but only in religious literature, you may fall for his rhetoric - and many low-information voters may do just that. He is the only Repub I am afraid of for the general and I hope that the GOP machine and the GOP-loving media will derail his candidacy soon because a prospect of his Presidency is scary.
Now to the Dems debate. Made me very proud to be a Democrat. The contrast was stark. On its own, the GOP debate was something out of a Bunjuel movie, but when placed in direct juxtaposition with the Democratic debate, it was an absolute disaster, a nightmare.
The big loser was ABC. The first question made a false assumption that a nuclear device is as small as something that can fit in a suitcase. The second question made the false assumption that Social Security is in danger. The third question made the false assumption that the "surge" in Iraq is working. not just that all three were false statements, but they are also all three important Republican talking points, and the part-and-parcel of Republican strategy of inducing fear in voters. And when Gibson showed his out-of-touchness by claiming that "a couple of professors, each earning over $100,000" he was laughed at by all four candidates and the audience. In what world does he live in? Oh, D.C. Explains it all.
Earlier in the season, when Dems debates featured eight candidates, Richardson was helped by the presence of Gravel and Kucinich. Next to them he appeared serious and reasonable. Last night, as personally likable he may be, he was clearly outclassed by the Three Stars. He has every right to keep trucking through the primaries, but he is not adding much to the debates and has no chance of doing well anywhere, so his funding is bound to dry up sooner or later and he'll be forced to quit, having made himself visible and well-known and in a good position to be invited for a high spot in the next Administration.
The other three were really all good. I disagree with Clinton on many things and do not believe that her presidency would be capable of rolling back all the disastrous changes that Bush years produced, but I like her, always did. What she can accomplish is still light-years ahead of anything a GOP president can do. I am still worried about her electoral chances, though.
I like Obama, really do, always did. I am still not bought on his strategy, that it would work (though a part of it - campaigning, not governing part - worked in Iowa caucuses), but I can give him a benefit of the doubt. If he is the nominee I would gladly support him all the way.
And of course, I am an unabashed supporter of Edwards. The chattering classes cannot imagine that what he says is what he really means. But he is my neighbor. I met him several times. In bookstores. At the gas station pumping gas. I know he is genuine, the real deal. What you see is what you get. And I have already explained several times why I think his strategy (more for governing than for winning the election in the first place) is the right strategy for the country.
There is change and there is change.
Rearranging the furniture is change. Clinton would do that.
Burning the furniture and the house down is change. Republicans are already doing this.
Getting creative and building new furniture is also change. Obama and Edwards would do that - the difference being that Edwards would kick the Republican pyromaniacs out of the house first so they cannot keep ruining the creative process.
And as I alluded to yesterday, there is a parallel I see between the discussion of relative merits of Obama's vs. Edwards' strategy and the discussion between "appeasers" and "angry atheists". The strategy of learning how to speak their language, being nice and gentle, and slowly helping them climb over the Wall to the sunny side is something that works on the ground, one-on-one or in small groups, away from the intruding eyes of cameras. The strategy of proclaiming loudly and strongly that BS is BS and that the alternative is the rational way to go moves the Overton Window in the right direction. The two strategies complement each other - the loud one determines what can be mentioned in public, the soft one moves people towards that view. The soft approach prepares individual people to accept and even rally for the lolud view.
You see where I am going with this, don't you? We need BOTH strategies simultaneously. When we take the White House, there has to be one person in the limelight (the President) who talks to the people every day with passion. There also has to be the other person (the Vice-President) who stays away from the cameras and uses his talent to move people over one at the time, both in DC and in constant travels around the country talking to ordinary people. You know who is who so fill in the names yourself.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I think I know where you are going, but since you know Edwards do you think he would be content to run as Veep a second time?
Who knows!? That is a no-no question to ask at this stage of the campaign, of course, as no candidate will answer it. I think this would largely depend on Elizabeth's wishes.
Also, watch his latest TV ad, to run tonight in NH:
Underdog
Nice post, Bora! You make alotta sense.
Good post. However, I'll have to disagree with your assertion that a nuclear device cannot be small enough to fit into a suitcase. You are mistaken. However, it is probably fair to say that there are not many groups in the world with the technology to manufacture such a device. And/Or it would be a very small yield.
Personally, I'm a little ambivalent between Obama and Edwards. I think both would be fine choices for different reasons.
They are both excellent at one-on-one retail politics, and they are both great orators on the big stage: that is why the two of them are the Superstars with extremely devoted followers. Whoever saw either one of them up close, fell in love. It's just that in 2004, Edwards did the retail strategy and Obama gave a fantastic speech at the Convention. This time around, they swapped strategies. They need to decide who-does-what in their Administration.
Great post, and I really want to agree with you. But the GWOT is still in most Americans' minds. "Be afraid, be very afraid" is the refrain or "back story" behind this election.
And the Democrats, for long-standing historical reasons, have zero credibility when it comes to Homeland Security.
Sad, very sad, but I'm really afraid that's true. Convince me otherwise.
Actually, several recent polls suggest that people overwhelmingly trust Democrats over Republicans on security.
Home this weekend nursing a cold, so I watched both debates and have been listening to commentary on the radio and reading the news. One thing that stood out for me has gotten no mention (that I have yet seen or heard):
Ron Paul (and I'm no fan) was talking sense about why so many people in the muslim world resent the US and all the other repubs on the stage began to hector him and laugh like he was some little kid. It was a real macho show. As far as Rudy and Mitt and Fred are concerned, the threat of terrorism --and you'd better believe it's a threat -- has absolutely nothing to do with 30 years of US policy in the mideast. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But not for the reason they are.
I agree. They shut him up as quickly as they could. He is a pretty bad guy and wrong on many things, but he is right on two important things, and this is one of them.
Oh, and I forgot another lie repeated several times during the GOP debate - that the US health-care system is the best in the world. It is the most expensive. It is the most bureaucratic. It is the most dehumanizing. And, no matter what disease you contract, your chances of surviving it are better in a few other countries than in the USA. And, according to the polls, people want something like a Canadian system.
He voted "yes" on iraq. For this election, I will not vote for anyone that did so. I think that people get too caught up in what a candidate says they will do and do not spend enough time examining what they have allready done. Everyone agrees Iraq was at least a "mistake". Well, how many more of these "mistakes" can we afford to make? There WERE people who though all of this back in the begining, and one of them is even running for president.
These extreme pettiness drives everyone crazy over on DailyKos and other progressive blogs. People who make such comments are called "purists" and, since there is no human being on the planet that can possibly satisfy their high expectations, all they do is concern trolling. Obama gave an anti-war speech before he got into the Senate, then shut up and voted to fund the war. Clinton never apologized for her vote for the war, but at least voted against the funding later. Edwards voted for the war, but then, against the advise of his "handlers", wrote an op-ed in WaPo titled "I Was Wrong". And an article came out by one of his advisors, suggesting that he initially did not want to vote for the war but was persuaded by his advisors and always regretted that moment of weakness. So who will you choose? The looney Kucinich who was against the war before or after he saw an UFO?
Beautiful rant by the way.
I have always had it in my mind that Richardson was the one running for VP. Hi qualifications are great. Perhaps he is really seeking to be appointed Secretary of State?
An Edwards-Obama ticket (either way) would be very powerful. Its hard for me to grasp what people are seeing when they are considering voting for any of the republican candidates. My mind set is just so far left that I cannot comprehend it. It just doesn't make sense to me. Clear away all the party affiliations and pretend all the candidates are running against each other... I don't understand how millions of people can support the vast majority of republican candidates. But like I said, I am so far gone now that my mind set can't comprehend their "values".
I'll take "looney Kucinich" for 5000 thank you. Bush's vanity war > UFO sighting.
A person who believes in UFOs and Greater Spirits and whose policy ideas have been recognized as unworkable by the liberal economists about 60 years ago, is not fit for a dog-catcher, sorry. We here belong to the "reality-based community". Democratic party never let the Left loony fringes affect the policy, and should not start now. Leave that strategy to the Republicans.
Right. Completely. 100%. except...
So how come these antiquated ideas keep winning elections?
How come people believe that if we give all the money to rich people and have no government except the military and they are the only ones who live in a socialist utopia while every body else has to look for commies under the bed or other librul progams? How come?
[] we're stupid
[] the commies made us
[] we're wusses
[] we're Democrats
[] We don't like foot ball
etc etc etc
It would be so much easier if people would accept reasoned disputation.
sa-a-a-a-a
--ml
You know what? [From my very first sentence] you think I'm trolling, so I'll just do you a favor and leave my opinions off of your site from now on. I didn't realize you could gain so much insight into my character and habits from just a few short sentences but it must be a handy talent.
It's called experience. Many years on Usenet and blogs. A concern troll is immediately detectable from the first five words typed.
Well Coturnix, you're wrong, because I'm not any of the things that you say I am nor do I do the things that you say I do. I don't post much, anywhere, and I don't advertise any kind of site (though you could figure out mine through my email address). I'm only a concern troll if that means that my opinions differ from yours. I don't understand your position on Edwards or Kucinich, that is all.
That's fine. My blog is my home. I invite friends for a chat. I have no interest in heated discussion nor time for everlasting back-and-forths on a topic that is not even related to the post in question. If you want to debate, go to DailyKos or various forums. This is my online home and I want my guests to be nice (and stay on topic). The Kucinich question has been debated to death already, it never interested me to begin with, it is over, and we'll move on - he is out of the run, so why even mention him?
What's a lolud view?
You've almost persuaded me to consider casting my unvote (I hurl a ballot as a Florida Democrat, but this time we know in advance that it won't be counted) for Edwards.
I hate to abandon Kucinich, but for whatever my gesture is worth it may be better to use it promoting the "realo" candidate.
Just as with Nader back in the day, my ideological preferences can't be expressed without harming my second choice by reducing his "momentum".
Coturnix, the next time you run into John Boy at the general store, please tell him about instant runoff voting*.
This winner-take-all pattern apparently hardwired into the US political system has got to go.
* (Here's the Wiki link: It starts: "The neutrality of this article is disputed.", so ftr I'm providing it without endorsement.)
I think you've really overestimated the intelligence of the average voter. The republicans repeat the talking points and sound like a bunch of guys in pub because that is all a great number of voters are able to understand. Democrats will continue appealling to everyone's reason and sense of decency while the republicans appeal to fear, hate, and everyone's favorite combination of the two: homophobia. It's gonna be a close election.
Spanish! Buñuel.
Oh, suitcase nukes exist, and are strong enough to make a city center unusable. The Soviet Union made 84 of them... and a few years ago Russia was only able to find 48 of them. The rest must be stolen. Let's hope they were sold as fuel for power plants...
Cortunix - don't diss mif. His point about the war is right on. The war is not some "arbitrary" issue, it's the biggest failure in foreign policy since Vietnam. That Edwards was an enabler is a big thing. Thousands of lives lost, millions of lives destroyed, billions of tax payer dollars wasted (tax dollars that could have gone into schools, bridges, social security ...) This is not some small petty issue. Yes Obama voted to fund on going war, but the KEY vote was to start the damn thing - now we've made a mess and it is not a simple task to extract ourselves from Iraq without making it worse. As I've stated before, the voters must punish those who gave Bush a free pass to start the damn thing - so that future senators think twice before supporting such a moronic policy.
I was anti-war until it started and shut up afterwards. I guess I never understood the mindset of people for whom the War is the one and only issue which makes and breaks everything. Most of the country, erroneously of course, supported the war and changed their mind later and are quite ready to accept that a politician went through the same phases, especially if one, like Edwards, comes clear and says "I Was Wrong". I never understand people who are incapable of moving on, stuck on war, war, war as if that is the only thing that matters, ignoring every other issue, and ignoring even the strategy for winning in November. It is a self-defeating strategy.
which might have something to do with why some people dismiss the Democrats as "republicans-lite".
seriously, taking principled stances --- even controversial ones --- can actually be a good thing in politics. smearing people who do as "loony fringes" just gets you... well, it seems to have got the Democrats steamrollered by a party that does listen to its "loony fringe".
the right-wing nutjobs may be however harmful to the country, and the principles they stand like rocks on may be ever so idiotic and dangerous, but standing firm on principles has always helped the GOP. whereas an earnest desire for compromise and consensus has earned the Democrats... a decade-plus of electoral losses.
lessee, is the Socialist Party USA on the ballot in my state...?
The Democrats' specialty!
(And one which Edwards et al joined in vigorously, having been cowed by Bush-Cheney since December 2000, and apparently corrupted by their major "contributors".)
Edwards may be the best available prospect for the White House this year, but let's not forget he remains part of a badly compromised party and system.
That is why, disgusted by what he saw in the Senate, he got out and is fighting from outside to change the system as a whole, not to play within it. Haver you heard him? have you read his booklet? Revolutionary stuff.
Coturnix, is the booklet online? I've been trying to get my friends more interested in Edwards, and I'll link them to it if I know where.
Yes, it can be downloaded here.
Com'on. You sound like Kristol who chants "Let's move on and forget". "Let's forgive". This is THE issue. Thousands of American lives have been lost. Millions of Iraqis lives have been destroyed. Billions of dollars have been wasted (verging on the trillions). It is not a small issue. It is a serious issue. I have ZERO respect for those that enabled this fiasco. And it's a fiasco - not some small issue. Politicians must learn a lesson. The political "elite" must learn a lesson. But they haven't yet. Up until recently, we still hear this nonsense on Iran. Kristol was just hired by the NY Times. Obviously the lesson hasn't been learned. And many people are furious over this issue. Those up high must be taught a lesson. I'm sorry if Edwards must pay the price along with the GOP.
In some ways Richardson (in the last debate) was right. How can we fix all these domestic issues when the war is draining all our resources? How can we have a reasonable foreign policy when we engage unilateral pre-emptive war? This is ludicrous. And some one must pay. Those that enabled this catastrophe to happen. You may not agree, but don't tell me that you "don't get it".
I still don't understand this mindset. Revenge? Even if it means losing to Repubs again? Not me. I want to work on the future, not dwell on the past. This is a Republican war and THEY need to pay for it.
Yes this is a Republican war but the constitution clearly states that the senate must declare war. The democrats could have put a stop to this, but Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and many other Democratic senators CAVED IN. They were thinking "if I don't vote for the war, I'll look like a pacifist weakling. I need to be tough, especially if one day I run for the presidency." Now I want them to suffer the consequences. I want Democrats with back bones. And I want future senators to look back at this time and think "if I cave into to this war-mongering neo-con ideology, I will pay the price just like they [read Kerry, Clinton and Edwards] did." Edwards claims that he'll fight the powers that be. I want more. I want to drill into all of their heads that they MUST fight for their principles (be it war or resisting lobbyists or any other right-wing ideology) or else they will pay the price. This is the only way we as progressives can press out agenda.
At the time, many thought that Bush could be trusted to behave like a President. The power-grab became obvious only later. And I don't want to see another GOP Administration in decades. Whatever it takes.
oh, you're going to see another republican administration within "decades"; there's really no avoiding it. that issue's definitely off the table --- as well wish for a pony as wish to shut the GOP out for more than ten, fifteen years or so at most.
one of the issues not off the table is what manner of administration we can, or will, expect to see the Democratic party provide in case they should manage to regain power any time soon.
i'm worrying, as apalazzo perhaps is too, that letting them get away without facing the consequences of their prior policy decisions would land us with nothing more than a republican administration in democratic business suits. if we the voters won't hold them to the progressive principles they're damn well supposed to stand for, why should they bother to? the Republicans' principles are, after all, proven good at winning elections (if not at running the country); theirs... not recently.
That is why I am afraid of a Clinton or Obama administrations.
"He is the only Repub I am afraid of for the general"
Have no fear. Huckabee is the weakest of the real GOP candidates. He doesn't have the Republican base except for the religious right. On Free Republic he was called "the snake grope from Hope." Limbaugh calls him a liberal because of his economic views and the neocons think he's too dovish. Independents won't go for him because of the wacky creationist vibe. Huck nomination = guaranteed Democratic win. I think the GOP nomination will be McCain, the Weekly Standard's favorite in 2000.
Huckabee might be weak enough in theory, but the current president was never any shining star of strength as a candidate either.
to me, the question is "can any of the Democratic candidates win by a landslide margin?". i'm a cynical old codger, y'see, and i learned from the last two presidential elections that when the Dems win by less than a landslide, we get a republican president; what manner of candidate the GOP is running seems to be immaterial.
if whoever gets the (D) nod can win by double-digit percentage points (and preferably in the twenties of percent or better), then we might see a Dem presidency; else, it's four more years of the repubs. even if it's Huckabee.