Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Susie, Don't we all wish he'd run!  I sure do.

Beesie I stand behind your right and anyone elses to discuss american politics here and anywhere you choose. I don't know enough about any other country's politics to hold an intelligent discussion. About the NV comment, I do hate the electoral college way of selecting people and figure since I've seen it go against the way I wanted and I don't have a choice about it, I'd happily take Barack's 1 more delegate. In a way my comment was tongue in cheek, because Hillary would have said she'd won if she had been the one to get the extra delegate or if she had won the popular vote and not the extra delegate. It's all about spin. I don't recall having heard Obama do the same.

The Republican debates were last night.  Did anyone else watch the full debate, and if so, what are your reactions?  Here are mine.  Bear in mind that when I took the matchmaker test on Fox, that Beth posted, the closest Republican to my way of thinking is Ron Paul, and that was only 40%. The others were 20% and below.

Some of the questions put to the candidates were just plain mean.

Anyone who has been reading these posts knows how much I dislike Giulliani, but when Brian Williams read him that scathing quote from today's New York Times editorial endorsing McCain, it was cruel and served no purpose whatsoever from a debate perspective. It was a bit like that comment to Hillary about her likability.  These so-called questions are really "gottcha's" and have no place in responsible journalism--if any of you are old enough to remember the days when responsible journalism actually existed!  

The candidates were all extremely civil to one another which I thought foolish (and also a bit of a yawn) since a number of factual distortions and untruths were made and went unchallenged.  

Huckabee was the most amusing, as always, and he also made the most outrageous comment of the evening, and based on it, I know for sure he won't get the nomination.  All the candidates said that Bush's decision to go into Iraq was a good one (OMG!) and Huckabee took it one more step, suggesting, against all evidence to the contrary, that there probably were WMD in Iraq and they may have been spirited out into Jordan.  We're hated enough in the Middle East, is he looking to lose us one of our only friends there?  He said, it was like looking for Easter eggs, you find some, but not all!  Some times, like the class clown, he keeps the kids laughing until he steps over the line and everyone gets detention. 

Ron Paul certainly echos some of my views, although definitely not all.  But in some respects he makes more sense than any of the candidates in either party, at least with respect to fiscal responsibility.  He represents what Republicans before Nixon once represented, which is lower taxes and lower spending, yet so few Republicans want him as the nominee.  

I'm not a Libertarian, and I believe that government has more responsibilities than fighting fires and policing, but I can't help but like the guy at times.  But the highlight of his being at the debates, for me, was his question to John McCain that referenced the economy and how Bush runs it through secret committee.  (Earlier McC had disputed a quote from Tim Russert that McC had once said of himself, 'that economy was not his strong suit,' which no doubt prompted the question by Ron Paul (Republicans as well as Democrats know that the economy is not McCain's thing!))  McCain couldn't answer and made a fool of himself trying.  It was so obvious he was flustered and I actually felt embarrassed for him.  Romney must have been dancing a jig in his mind!

Romney did a good job (Republican job, that is) discussing the economy, and since that's what's on the public's mind these days, he probably did the best of the candidates.  

McCain was repetitive: "the bridge to nowhere," "pork barrel spending," "white flag of surrender," and emphasized over and over again how he will not capitulate in Iraq.  Since a large majority of Americans now firmly believe we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and we should now get out, I think he'll have a difficult time winning the election.

Giulliani's claims about what he did in New York, particularly with respect to deficits, were untrue and yet no one challenged him (the New York Times did, of course). That doesn't look good for his hopes if the other candidates can't be bothered to challenge him on half truths, and in some cases, lies. 

But perhaps not, as the same is true of Romney, who still has a chance at the nomination.  The folks in Massachusetts must be amazed when they hear Romney repeat over and over again that he balanced the budget four times and cut  taxes 19 times, etc. (I assume one of the Boston papers will do as the NY Times did and dispute his half-truths, but will that get out to the entire country?) And when one of the journalists noted that the health care offered by Romney in Mass. is mandated care, he skirted completely around this fact, and then later attacked Hilliary on her health care plan. It was interesting, though, that unlike all the other Republicans who attack her on her plan because it's "mandated," he attacked her because it's government funded.  I assume he knows that if he wins the nomination, the opposition, whether Hilliary or Obama, won't smile graciously and let this stuff lie.   If Romney wins (doubtful, but possible) he'll have a lot more flip flopping to do.

Tim Russert at one point read a list to all the candidates, indicating where the country was when Clinton left office and where it is now.  Huge increases in: deficit, government spending, gasoline prices, health care, greater unemployment, loss of income in the middle class, foreclosures, etc.  Not one of the candidates criticized Bush or the administration directly, except Ron Paul (and McCain on the management of the war but not on the war itself).  The answer to all economic ills was "cut taxes."  Any one of us could run as a Republican.  All we have to do is stand on a stage and repeat over and over again, "Cut taxes."

We could have had this debate start and end in ten minutes, but what the heck, there was nothing else on TV that I wanted to watch.  

Beesie--it's an addiction.  What can I say! 

Amy, if what a candidate posts on his or her website doesn't count, do press releases and speeches by their campaign managers count?  This article includes what appears to be the full text from Obama's press release following the Nevada primary, and also references his campaign manager's post-primary conference call with reporters, in which he "claimed victory for his candidate".

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/obama_camp_decl.html

"Meanwhile, Obama offered his thoughts in a statement released by the campaign:

"We're proud of the campaign we ran in Nevada," he said. "We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled. The reason is because tens of thousands of Nevadans came out to say that they're tired of business-as-usual in Washington and ready for a President who can bring this country together, take on the lobbyists and special interests, and end the politics of saying and doing whatever it takes to win an election. It is the kind of politics that feeds our cynicism and distracts us from taking on the real challenges facing America - an economy that's left working families struggling, a broken health care system, and a war in Iraq that must end.

He added: "We ran an honest, uplifting campaign in Nevada that focused on the real problems Americans are facing, a campaign that appealed to people's hopes instead of their fears. That's the campaign we'll take to South Carolina and across America in the weeks to come, and that's how we will truly bring about the change this country is hungry for.""

I don't see how anyone can say that Barack was not publicly trying to claim victory.  He may have been using his campaign manager and the press to say it for him, but he handed the press the words through his press release.

Still, as I said earlier, I don't blame him for that and I'm sure Clinton would have done the same had the situation been reversed.  But let's not make Obama out to be squeaky clean and above the fray while portraying Clinton as the witch from hell.  From my perspective, their campaigns seem to be a pretty even match on all counts (good and bad).

LOL!

Would love a Gore nomination, but my BP couldn't take the strain until the convention. 

I have one question.  Do any of you know what exactly these candidates are going to do for us when one of them is finally elected?  I don't know if I can take the crude slinging that, I feel, the Clinton camp has started with Obama.

One candidate has been honest and that's McCain.  He's saying he will NOT pull out of Iraq.  We hear on the dem side that they want our troops out.  Well, when?  How? 

How many of you think that we should pull out of Iraq immediately?

We ALL know that politicians are going to promise things that we want to hear.  I'm already getting sick of it and we've got a long way to go.

Shirley

I'm glad to hear that someone may want to listen to the military experts. 

Does anyone believe the surge is working?

Shirley

Did anyone see where Gore told Clinton to stop telling untruths about Obama?  He said just because he was president doesn't give him that right (my interpretation).

I have been away for a while, so it was so much fun going back and reading what everyone is thinking.  I only saw a small part of the Republican debates.  I love politics and DH doesnt.  He usually wins when it comes to TV time.

Im finding myself weeks later still not knowing who I will vote for.  Things are getting a little crazy out there between all the candidates.

I thought about what someone said about making voting mandatory.  In my way of thinking, voting is a a special priveledge, but if you choose not to participate so be it.  What if you dont like anyone? 

Amy:  I giggled when I read you sent them letters inviting you to lunch.  Actually I thought, it might just happen knowing you.  At least it shows your passion for your thoughts and ideas.  I hope you get a lunch scheduled.  Then I will whisper to you one or two of my ideas to mention to them also.

Anyways, Im glad to be back.  And look forward to reading alot more about this whole political process and where its going.

Nicki (aka chemosabi)

Another long one!    

Susie,

I haven't been following the issue with Michigan and Florida, so I don't know the full story.  What I believe I know is that both states, trying to have more of an impact on the selection, moved up their primaries.  As a result they were slapped down by the Democratic Committee and some of the candidates promised not to campaign in those states, including HRC.  She did, however, leave her name on the ballot.  She was not alone in doing that.  I believe Kucinich and a few others did as well, but not Obama and Edwards.  Whether the delegates get seated in the end is anyone's guess right now, but if the Committee wants Hilliary to win (and it comes down to needing those delegates, hopefully it won't) then most likely they'll seat them, and no doubt they'll be a lawsuit thereafter. Or if the nomination looks in the bag for one of the candidates before the convention, and their votes don't matter, then they'll seat them to keep them in the fold.  Anyway, if I'm wrong on this, someone will correct me.

HRC leaving her name on the ballot but not campaigning is another example of the Clintons being more astute and experienced in the political arena than Obama. Obama and Edwards should have done the same, just not campaigned there.  Even if they don't count those delegates, the Democrats of Michigan and Florida won't feel totally disenfranchised if Hilliary gets the nomination and are more likely to go to the poles for her in November.  

My own view is, as someone else on this board recently expressed, that all the states should vote at the same time.  It would save us all huge amounts of money and time, and bring more fairness to the process.  I dislike that some states, with fewer voters than reside in my building in New York City, should have more power in picking the nominee!  Exaggerating, but you'll know what I mean.  Down with the Electoral College as well. If we didn't have the Electoral College, John Edwards would be the heir apparent and this year's nominee, which would suit me fine. 

Amy--I don't believe I wrote that all politics have to be dirty, I wrote that all politics are dirty. And it's clear to me, although apparently not to you, that Obama also has dirty hands in what's been happening in this primary.  I wish I could blame the Republicans for starting this state of affairs during the era of Karl Rove, but it's been going on for well over a hundred and fifty years, and probably longer, and will be going on long after my death. That doesn't make me a cynic, just a reader of history.

As much as I admire certain European election policies (moratoriums on polls before the election, a shorter election period, etc.) which are directed at mitigating the influence of money and the media, it's dirty there as well.

The train tragedy in Madrid a few years back is a case in point.  It happened right before the national elections.  The then-sitting government of Aznar (a dear friend of George Bush) put out a claim that Basque terrorists were responsible. He did this because his opposition, Zapatero, had proposed bringing the Basgues to the bargaining table; Aznar concluded that if the voters believed the Basques were responsible, Zapatero would lose the election. But it backfired when the news got out independently that Islamic terrorists were responsible, and he lost an election that many had thought he would win.  Aznar was a big supporter of the war in Iraq; Zapatero pulled his country's troops out of Iraq very soon after the election. 

Amy, you'll be interested to know that Zapatero appointed women to more than half the positions in his cabinet and was effective in legalizing gay unions, much to the dismay of Aznar's party.  It really was an amazing feat, considering that Spain is a Catholic country and that the Church did every thing to prevent it happening.  Zapatero is one of my all-time favorite politicians.

Anyway, I bring up the example of the Madrid tragedy as it is very close to what the Bush administration has been doing since 9/11. The most profound example is of Bush using 9/11 to attack Iraq, when everyone in the world, who was interested in knowing, knew that Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11. And it continues.  Whenever the administration thinks it might lose an election, or a vote on national security in the Congress, it puts out a terrorist scare.  I am so afraid this will happen immediately before the general election this year.  I can only hope that the American people, like the Spanish people, are wise enough to recognize it for what it is.  

I say again that all politics are dirty.  As I've said a few times on this board, I will vote for the person who best represents the policies I want for my country, who will fight for the fairness I believe all citizens deserve.  I am no advocate of Hilliary Clinton, or John Edwards, or Barack Obama.  I'll vote for whichever one of them wins the nomination.  And in the primaries, I'll probably vote for HRC, because of the three I believe she's the best equipped to beat the Republican nominee.  But I still have time before Super Tuesday to change my mind.

Before I continue reading the posts I want to say I made a boo-boo.  It was Gore who told the ex prez to stop saying things that weren't exactly true.  It was Kerry.  I'm such a ding-bat. 

Shirley

If there's any Democrat willing to listen to anything Kerry says, it's probably his wife.  He lost the last election; Bush didn't win it.  If I were Obama I would have refused his endorsement. 

I agree Annshirley, I would have said, "Thanks but no thanks" to Kerry!

Thanks!

I know about the bills that she has introduced with Senator Schumer and the six other senators regarding 9/11 responders, but I was referring to a significant piece of legislation that she not only introduced but got into law and  not just read and referred to committee. Something that has her name on it that stands out as a major accomplishment.

I ask because it will come up if she is the candidate... she needs to be prepared. Esp. if McCain is running against her, since he has a much fuller cv

I know on a personal level, that when her office has been approached three times to help women with breast cancer and the illegal practices of their insurance companies preventing them from getting proper care, Mrs. Clinton wanted nothing to do with them and was of no help whatsoever.  But they were downstate- maybe it would have rec'd more attention if they were upstate. 

I was listening to CNN at the time of my earlier post- they were saying that Edwards came in second. Another example of counting the chickens before they are hatched!

Still - this is going to be an interesting year, I must say!