Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

I watched the entire debate and have a completely different view of what happened and how Obama appeared, which for me was (1) as the least qualified of the three candidates, (2) thin skinned, and (3) a cry baby.  I thought John Edwards was the clear winner, with Hillary Clinton, second and Senator Obama a distant third.  The reasons I think Obama lost:

From the bickering aspect. Obama began the personal attacks; Clinton didn't let them go and came right back at him.  Still, it would have been better if she had let them go. When women get into political fights, they're  often viewed as petty and aggressive.  This is not true of men.  It's not fair, but it's reality, and Hilliary Clinton should have learned this by now.

Example:  Obama said he was a neighborhood civil rights coordinator when Hillary was on the board of directors of Walmart.  She rebounded by saying she was advocating for the rights of children when he was doing work for a Chicago slum lord.  She was on the board of Walmart and he did work for a slum lord (and there's much more to the story than what he claimed in rebuttal).  It was downhill from there until the middle of the show.  

In presentation of facts and details, Obama lost.  In no single instance did he answer a question directly.  He took much longer in his answers than either Clinton or Edwards (and often gobbled up Edwards' time), and in every answer he wandered from the point and rarely gave facts and figures to support his positions.

Example: his reason for not supporting "universal" health care was beyond convoluted. He doesn't support mandated "universal" health care because lots of people can't afford health care so won't pay, so therefore it won't be universal, or something of that nature. I strongly believe that the reason his plan is not mandated and not universal (unlike the plans of Clinton and Edwards) is because of political calculation--that he's thinking about the general election.  He knows the  Republicans will attack any plan that mandates health care, and he's decided to skirt around it with his half-baked plan, which is essentially what he did in the U.S. Senate when he skipped important votes on funding the Iraq war. 

it was apparent during the debate that he is very thin skinned--not good if you're going to succeed in a general election with Karl Rove clones ready to pounce on you for every thing you say, or don't say.

Example: In other debates, Obama used votes that Clinton and Edwards made in the Senate against them, in particular their votes on Iraq.  Anyone who's been in a legislative body for any length of time will have votes that they later regret and will always have votes that can be used against them.  It's one reason why long-standing senators have such a difficult time getting elected president. Yet, when Obama was called on his 130 "Present" votes in the Illinois legislature, he protested, in effect crying "not fair." And why is it not fair?  In that skirmish, Edwards clearly won. 

He also protested when Hillary Clinton brought up his "yes" vote in the U.S. Senate to support unlimited interest rates on credit card debt. Obama responded that he thinks 30% is too high, which was the reason for his vote for unlimited rates.  That's how it sounded to me and apparently to John Edwards, because Edwards challenged him on that as well.  Again, he said that his vote was mischaracterized but he didn't effectively explain how or why.  Clinton and Edwards can claim the same regarding their votes on the Iraq war.  If you ask your opponents to take responsibility for their votes, then you must be willing to accept responsibility for your own votes (or non-votes).    

At one point Obama was asked a question during the debate which he used as a platform to say that the Clintons were mischaracterizing his words. 

Example: He says the Clintons, both of them, claim he had praised Reagan and the Republicans for certain of their political and policy ideas. This happened during an interview of Obama by one of the Nevada newspapers.  He now says he wasn't praising Reagan or the Republicans.  I saw that clip a few days ago and asked my husband, "Is he nuts praising Reagan during a Democratic primary?"  Watch the clip or read the transcript and make up your own minds if there is any mischaracterization.  Sure sounded like praise to me.

I was very sure I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton in the New York primary but now I'm not so sure.  If Edwards starts picking up delegates in South Carolina and Florida, and I think he has a chance to win the nomination, I may vote for him.  I thought he did quite well in the debate tonight; perhaps he's finally getting his "voice." 

Hi Amy,

I rather surmised from your previous posts that you would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she were the nominee.  I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whether Obama, Clinton, or Edwards. Gay rights, women's rights, in particular free choice, the needs of the uninsured, the poor and the underprivileged, whatever their race, the education of children, the stopping of the war, are too important to me to aid in bringing in another four years of Republicans. I hope you'll reconsider and not permit your dislike of Hilliary Clinton to influence your vote.  Every vote counts and I think when it's all over, she will be the nominee.

It's strange, I thnk, that you didn't get a response from Clinton's campaign; I sent an email to her campaign immediately after New Hampshire and heard back within a day, a form letter, of course.  I get emails from Edwards campaign three times a day but that, I suppose, is because I gave him a campaign a contribution. I've written to his campaign as well, and I always get a response, in about the same time frame, also a form letter.

If you dislike her so much, why did you invite Hillary Clinton to lunch?  Maybe you haven't heard back because she's mulling it over.  That would be a very awkward lunch, I think!  I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that one! LOL

P.S.  One Hundred and Thirty times, as John Edwards said!  

Amy, yes, you are right.  It's just the "marriage" designation that is the stumbling block.  I have thought of "marriage" to mean one thing (one man, one woman) and changing the definition of the word is so Clinton-esque.    For better or for worse.

So nice to know *someone* is listening to me.

Tina

Donna, don't you see the candidates almost every day having lunch with people in a diner? Why not me? I of course do not expect any of the candidates to have lunch with me, but somehow there are ordinary people who do have lunch with them so I figured what the hell, I'll ask because if I don't I'll have no chance. I'll probably pass out if anyone actually accepts.

Abbadoodles- you have FINALLY been someone who could actually answer my question. I see marriage as a union between two consenting adults who (hopefully) love each other and want to build a life together. I knew a gay man and lesbian who got married while continuing to pursue their own same sex loves because of their families not accepting their sexual orientation. To me that's sad.

Joan,

You are absolutely correct.  I don't distnguish between the words "Bush" and "Republican."  He is a Republican.  I don't see much difference between any of them.  The days of Jacob Javits and John Lindsay are long gone. This is not true of Bloomberg, however. He couldn't get the Democratic nomination in New York City, which is the sole reason he became a Republican.  He became an independent after he no longer needed the mantle of the Republican Party.

Since I laid out my political concerns at the  bottom of my recent post: universal health insurance, abortion rights, gay rights, stopping the war, etc., It would seem obvious that there are no Republican candidates that I could possibly vote for.  Even some of the Democrats have views that I find abhorrent, including support of the death penalty.

And you are so right.  I am politically opinionated, as you are.  And why not?  I read up on each candidate's views, read their position papers, even those of Republicans, and when I go into the booth on election day I know why I'm voting for my candidate.  I try not to let personal prejudices, where I'm conscious of them, interfere with the opinions I form.  In fact, the last time Bill Clinton ran for office, I did not pull the lever for president.  I was offended by his change from support of gay rights in the military, to "don't ask, don't tell." Of course, we are all victims of our unconscious prejudices.

I am curious.  It appeared from previous posts that you don't have CNN and couldn't view the debates, so how have you formed your opinion of last night's debate, which is what I discuss above, with specific examples.  One of the reasons I like Hillary Clinton is she's very detailed and gives examples. I suppose in that way we're compatible. 

I can discuss politics without getting personal.  Now that this discussion has gotten personal, I will retire from the list.  It's all yours, Joan.  Now go beat up on those unregistered voters. 

Hi Anne,

For this question

"I am curious.  It appeared from previous posts that you don't have CNN and couldn't view the debates, so how have you formed your opinion of last night's debate, which is what I discuss above, with specific examples.  One of the reasons I like Hillary Clinton is she's very detailed and gives examples. I suppose in that way we're compatible.  "

the answer is that I do have friends who have cable.I also can read still reports on CNN and the NYT online.And thus I have opinions.

But, being an old (in all meaning of the word) Kennedy Era warhorse, I also admit I am reactionary.

AND I do not like Hillary.

The unregistered voters--hey, I have spent years trying to get them to register, in 3 states, Mass, NY, and PA.It is getting harder and harder.For here, it seems unappropos for anyone to opinionate who isnt registered to vote.

And I also spend time manning the phonelines on election day, trying to beg people to get out and vote.

Both these things are incomprehensible to me.No one could STOP me from availing of my right as an American, to vote!(Not even the dreaded threat of july duty.)

Did I say something to you that you deem as turning the discussion personal?Because although I DID speak to you, I dont think I was rude.I hope not!

It goes w/out saying that we , as all Americans (all registered Americans!) have the right to discuss the candidates, and back the candidate of our choice.

And I also hope you do not go away!I'm loving hearing you lovely, bright, wellspoken Democrats.Being more from the Weathermen school myself, I WISH I could be like that!I will be quiet and just read, if you will stay!

PS.I have just watched the fireworks last night in SC on PBS.I'm thinking I'm better off not having cable.Or my blood pressure is!

Hi Joan,

I do get huffy at times, perhaps because I am opinionated, but then I think it's a good thing to have opinions.  I assumed you meant "opinionated" as a put down. So glad you didn't!  Speaking of misinterpreting . . .

On voters who don't vote, I couldn't agree with you more. In lots of countries, voting is required by law (or there are penalties).  I wish we had something similar here.  

I suppose we all take against some candidates for their personalities, not necessarily their politics.  Rudy is mine, but I did work with him once so have more than just TV appearances on which to base my dislike.  If he gets elected, I'm back to Italy to live.  Couldn't bear watching him on TV for four years, although it is possible I could give up TV! 

If I were to vote for the politician with the best personality--the most likeable to me, it would be Mike Huckabee, but not in a million years because of his political positions.

Beesie,

You're absolutely right about the three ending statements. Edwards' was too self serving; Obama did better (I thought while he was speaking, where does Hillary go after this), but she was brilliant.  She amazes me at how articulate she is, and quick.  I'm impressed.  And you're right about the media, mostly the male media but also some women.  They do love to hate her.  When Tucker Carlson (about as Republican as you can get) praises Obama, I know Hilliary will have a hard row getting the nomination and going on from there to win the election.  Thank goodness the really important man in my life likes her, a lot. 

I have stayed away from this topic, b/c I am a huge supporter of Hilary Clinton, and I truly don't want to debate anything with anyone, b/c quite frankly, I don't care to hear what anyone else thinks of her.

HOWEVER, I would like to invite you all to click on this link:

http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics?pageId=3.14

Scroll to the right at the top of the page where it says, CANDIDATE MATCHMAKER.  You will then answer a series of questions.  You will then see the % of answers matched with ALL of the candidates.  You can then view the answers of all the candidates.

It's quite interesting.  When I answered it,Hilary and Obama actually tied in my percentage.  The areas I disagreed with Hilary was nothing that alarmed me.  I'm a democrat that likes the death penalty (so sue me)...

Regardless of my opinion, I think you guys should take it even if just for shits and giggles, to see which candidate you match up with best.

Shirley,

Joan is certainly all that you say, so I'm happy this is resolved.  Not much sense getting angry over politics, or we'd all be walking around in a tizzy.

Many people think theirs is the best country in the world.  I have many good friends throughout Europe who think theirs is the best and many others, like myself, who could live happily in many different places: here in the U.S.,  Canada, Ireland (if it would improve its weather), France, Italy, Spain, Portugal . . . And yes, I would leave if Rudy won, although in this real estate market it would take some time to sell our house, so, knock on wood, he won't win. I truly cannot stand the man. For the same reason, I left when Bush won in 2000.  We sold our house with all its furniture, and I told Verizon, for whom I was doing consuting work, that I would work from Europe, or not at all. My husband is a painter so he can work from anywhere. Fortunately, Verizon said yes to my working from Italy, where we settled.  It's a wonderful country (Berlesconi excepted), with lovely people, food, scenery, and art, and we were very happy there. But, like Joan, I take my politics very seriously, and we returned in 2004 to campaign for John Kerry--and was that ever a farce. We offered to go to Ohio, at our own expense, to campaign, and didn't even get a call back from his campaign headquarters.  We left again, immediately after the election. 

It happened that we returned to New York in 2006 to visit family, and I was in New York when I found my lump and subsequently had my treatment, which I must say has been excellent.  I attribute this to the fact that I had just turned 65 and was eligible for the only form of universal health care we have in this country, Medicare, compliments of a Democratic President and Congress.  If I had found the lump while in Italy, no doubt I would have had my treatment there.  Luck of the draw, I expect. 

And yes, I do believe voting should be mandatory.  Citizens have civic duties and voting is one of them.  Our citizens don't seem to take theirs very seriously.  We have one of the lowest voter turnouts in the world.  Freedom, however that's defined, comes at a cost. I should mention that there are many freedoms that exist in other countries that don't exist in ours, and many freedoms that exist here that don't exist in other countries.  (Amy can mention one at least:  gay marriages are permitted in many countries in the EU.)  There are also many things that we're not free to do  because we're bound by social conventions or live within social boundaries, many of which make perfect sense to me.   We can't drive a car without having a license and insurance; we can't work without paying social security or income taxes; we can't set our houses on fire because they belong to us, and the one most often cited: we can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.  I don't know if Cuba requires its citizens to vote, but I certainly know of many other countries that do, and all of them very democratic.  Good ideas are good no matter where they're practiced or what their origin.     

I've only lived in three countries:  United States, Italy, and Spain, so I can't agree or disagree that the U.S. is the best in the world.  I do love my home in Maine, but not in the winters, and I'm so so about New York City.  Too hectic and crowded for me as I age.  Loved it when I was young and single though.  But for food and art, Italy definitely has us beat.  

I got involved in this thread when someone said that Hilliary Clinton had not been a good senator for New York, and here I'm still going strong days later.  I promise to lay off the politics for a bit, at least until after Super Tuesday.

Joan, on that day they'll be lots of nail biting and high BP in my house, although after a year on herceptin I don't have much in the way of nails to bite.   

Beth, that was great.  I came up with Dennis Kucinich, my favorite candidate from the very beginning.  And of the three left in the race, I scored highest with Hilliary.  I'll recommend it to others. 

I also don't see a difference between Republicans and Bush, because  they are the ones who elected him once and anointed him once. I know there are people who are republicans who don't like Bush and his policies, but I believe them to be few and far between.

Like Shirley, I agree that voting should be a decision left up to the individual. While I don't think people who avoid voting have a right to complain about the government and value the privelege of voting, I believe people should be able to forgo that if they choose.

Beth, no surprise to me, I got Kucinich as my match- 85%, Hillary and Gravel tied for 2nd with 75%, Obama 63% and Edwards 58%.

Anne Shirley, Holland legalizes most drugs and allows for euthanasia as well- two civil liberty causes I also strongly support.

I heard back from Obama-- no lunch for us. It was a form letter and completely ignored my question, which was a turn off after Edwards' campaign response. I don't blame Obama for that.

I also wanted to be clear that I will vote in the November elections no matter what, I never miss an election. My decision if Hillary is the dem nominee will be whether to write in Kucinich, leave the president slot empty (my PRESENT vote), vote for Hillary against my better judgment, or vote for Bloomberg if he's a 3rd party candidate. I won't vote for a republican who is antichoice and gay rights.

Gina, thanks!  I studied U.S. politics a lot back when I was getting my PoliSci degree, but that was over 30 years ago. (Yup, I'm feeling old now!)  More recently, I did spend a number of years living in the U.S..

I will say though that every time before I post in this thread, I hesitate because as a Canadian, I'm not sure that I should be commenting on U.S. politics.  But the fact is that Canadians and others around the world are greatly impacted by what happens with the U.S. election.  All of us in Western nations are less safe today because of the decisions and actions of George Bush.  I can't take the subway here in Toronto without wondering when Al-Qaida will come through on their promise to target Canada.  Canadian military peace-keepers in Afghanistan now face war-like conditions thanks to the actions of George Bush (and they are dying as a result).  Even domestic policies, such as the U.S. sub-prime financial debacle, which George Bush refused to address earlier when he might have been able to take action to avert the current crisis, has had a severe negative impact on every financial market in the world, including the Canadian market (I'm sure feeling the impact!).  So while those of us outside the U.S. can't vote in the American election, our fate is very much tied to it.  At the time of the 2004 election I was travelling a lot internationally and I can tell you that there was huge interest everywhere.  What no one outside of the U.S. could fathom was how it was even possible that George Bush might be re-elected. 

Besides all that, I just find this all to be very entertaining.  Here in Canada, in addition to our own Canadian television networks and local stations, most of us get the U.S. television networks (and depending on the cable package, the BBC  and other foreign news services.)  So it's easy to be well-informed.      

To your question about Senators, here's the info on that:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_became_president.htm

Sorry, beesie, but I agree entirely with your thought that it might not be right to comment on our politics here.

I understand that things are bad, and what happens in this country has broad repercussions, next door and abroad.And I know that foreign people fully discuss our ongoing elections.

But I do not feel it is proper for you to be here criticizing and hearing us criticize candidates.

The best way I can describe it is that you are listening to us air our dirty laundry.

And even throwing some out which you picked out of one of our clothes hampers.

I was brought up to keep family things private, and maybe because of this I never discuss American politics with foreigners.

Any more than I would join a political discussion about, say, France, with a group of French people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anne and the other Italio-lover, do you know that one of us LIVES in Italy?She has married an enchanting Italian writer and has been living in a very awesome town near Roma!Marilyn writes here as Blunden.If you see her, grab her!

Joan,

I already know Marilyn.  Thank you.  

To your other point, Beesie has every right to discuss politics here or anywhere else she pleases, and in particular because she knows the issues so well, and discusses them so intelligently.  Of course, after this, she'll probably pack up her knowledge and move elsewhere.

I don't think Joan was saying Beesie doesn't have a right to discuss american politics. Everyone has the right to discuss anything they want. What I believe she was saying and what I agree with is that I wouldn't insult people from a different country about their politics by making broad assumptions based on a few comments. It's quite possible to have a civil conversation about politics or any other topic without the need to come to an exact meeting of the minds. I think political discussions help people hammer out their own thoughts and priorities by hearing different perspectives.

Like Shirley and Joan, I've never pulled the straight party lever, although I have at times voted straight democrat I look at each lever closely. I admit not to know that much about certain local elections like school board. If I had kids I'd educate myself better.

Amy, I truly apologize if you felt that I was insulting to you.  That was certainly not my intent.  I assume that you are referring to the comments about the NV results.  I simply was questioning your comment with about Obama winning NV "for all that matters" since he got more delegates despite getting fewer votes.  In truth, I wondered if you were joking, which is often difficult to interpret in posts, since the comment seemed so inconsistent with what I thought your beliefs to be.  I honestly expected you to come back and say that you had been joking and that of course it's a problem anytime the delegates (or the electoral college seats) don't match to the popular vote percentages, whether the results are unfavorable to the candidate of your choice or favorable to him (or her).  

As for Joan's comment, as I read her words, I do think that she is saying that I don't have a right to discuss American politics, at least in this forum.  This is however a public discussion board with members from all round the world, so I don't see any reason to feel restricted.  There is a forum for Canadian BC survivors on this discussion board and many American women read the threads and post there.  I don't know of anyone who has a problem with that. And to use Joan's analogy, if a family is airing their dirty laundry in the middle of a public street, they can't be surprised if some of the neighbours listen in.  And if it happens that some of that dirty laundry has landed on the neighbour's lawn, they certainly shouldn't be surprised when the neighbours comment, voice opinions and maybe even get critical about some things done by the family. 

Back to more interesting matters.  Here's an interesting website that pulls together many of the available polls for each of the primaries and the overall national races: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/