Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Dottie--you've made an excellent point if I may assume you're thinking specifically of Nafta when you talk about candidates making promises to change things over which they have no control.  In this case, both Clinton and Obama are guilty as sin.  There was a long discussion of this today on the McLaughlin Group, and although I dislike Monica Crowly (a lot), she was the most sensible, I thought, on this issue.  To quote her, the horse is out of the barn.

First of all, Nafta only deals with Canada and Mexico, and China and India are far bigger problems in terms of jobs leaving our country. We can't go back, and now Canada is so angry at the rhetoric that it's threatening to stop selling us cheap oil if we try to renegotiate Nafa. I don't know if it's true or it was just hyperbole on his part, but John McLaughlin said if that were to happen, oil could go to $10.00 a gallon.  It's about $8.00 now in Italy and the price of everything has gone up as a result, including the basics like bread and milk and pizza!

McCain in this respect is more honest.  One of the reasons he lost Michigan (not excluding that it's Romney's home state) is he didn't make false promises  to bring jobs back that have long disappeared.  I think this is going to be an interesting national election in this respect.  Will they all pander to the voters by promising what they know they can't deliver, John McCain included, or will McCain tell the truth.  And if he does, will that lose him the election? 

I think this thread may become even more interesting! 

And Canadians are so gentle! Thanks Beesie for supplying the exact words.  I didn't remember that Obama had been so aggressive. I noticed that the  story that Obama's campaign contacted the Canadian ambassador to say it's all rhetoric is still alive and growing  It was discussed today on the McLaughlin Group, and there are no Hillary supporters there:

John McLaughlin, Republican

Monica Crowley, Republican

Pat Buchanan, Republican

Eleanor Cliff, Obama Supporter

Clarence Page, Obama Supporter 

Is or has anyone been volunateering for the campaigns. I started making phone calls for Obama this weekend and am hoping to be more involved when the campaign opens up more offices in PA. I have signed up for a few meetings on planning and am looking forward to that.

I saw Steinem's article. I hope that she just didn't express her beliefs well- because it was abominable. I think she meant to question how being a POW makes one qualified to be president any more than the experiences that Obama and Clinton tout. I hate what was done to McCain and I hate even more that the US has been and is continuing to do to our prisoners by calling them terrorists with no juris prudence or proof.

I respect what Steinem has done for women's issues to an extent. I find it utterly disgusting that she implies that supporting Obama is out of guilt for slavery. That thought smacks of racism.

I'm reading a wonderful book To Believe In Women by Lillian Faderman. I'm about 1/3 of the way through and the part I've read primarily dealt with suffrage. These woman, rather than complaining about being treated unfairly, but their words to actions and fought to change society so someone like Hillary could run for president. I hope that we have other women who run for president and learn from Hillary's mistakes, women who are more respresentative of the values I look for in a president.

Susie,

Isn't putting the blame on Hillary Clinton for something one of her supporters said tantamount to putting the blame on Obama for his support by Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Obama's pastor for some 20 years, who is accused by some whites as racist and anti-gay, or blaming him for the support of Louis Farrakhan, or blaming McCain for the support of that racist idiot (whose name I can't remember) that was brought in to warm up the crowd at one of McCain's events?    

I just received an email from a man who is a huge supporter of Clinton's who in getting out the vote wrote this:

Could African Muslims gain powerful influece in an Obama White House? 

His email goes on to spew out a lot of under-the-cover racism. I wrote back asking that my name be removed from his list, and also told him directly that he's a racist and is undermining Senator Clinton's campaign by letting people associate his ideas with hers.  She does not in any way advocate such views.

I would hate to think that anyone in an attempt to get their preferred candiate the nomination would use racist, anti-feminist, or anti-gay rehetoric or would in any form appeal to people's baser instincts.  I want Clinton to get the nomination but not at the cost of stirring up racism, hatred, or anti-Muslim sentiments. And I trust the same is true of Obama supporters. 

I also sent a note to the Clinton campaign informing them of this spam and asking them to post something on her website disclaiming this message.  I have seen these types of email before, and I've found Senator Clinton's campaign to be very aggressive in disclaiming such filth. 

That being said, I agree with Steinem that being a prisoner of war is not a qualification to be the Republican nominee for president in the same way that Max Cleland, who lost his two legs and an arm in Vietnam, is not qualified to be the Democratic nominee by virtue of his heroism and physical loss.  They both deserve the nation's graditude for the sacrifices they made, and what they did certainly testifies to their character.  But McCain is not running on his status as a war prisoner; he's running on his long career in the U.S. Congress, and it's on his voting record and platform upon which he should be judged.  I think Steinem could have chosen her words better concerning McCain (or better yet not spoken them at all), but I couldn't agree more with her sentiments about our mis-placed admiration of militarism.  

In the end, if I've learned anything from this campaign and this thread, it's that people will vote how they want and that they rarely change their minds once they've made their decision one way or the other.  

I'm just back from a lunch for Clinton at the Firebird restaurant.  The food was great and for anyone who lives in New York City the restaurant is very beautiful.  Well worth a visit--it's in the theatre district.  At least if she loses I got a decent meal for all my troubles. 

WooooHOOOO, so glad to see that Gloria is still able to stir up controversy and discussion!!! She has always had a talent to bring out the internal thoughts of others and make her points!

And so glad to see the beginning of a turn away from individual related remarks.  I hate it when I have to leave a good discussion because some people start calling others out.

We have enough to discuss with the candidates and their representives.

We'll have to wait to see what the "contestants" will say when it gets a bit closer to the general election.

Who IS Obama anyway?  He's a guy with that can speak well.  He's a guy who has not so "nimble" fingers.  He's a guy who will not unite this nation.  McCain has proven he can work with the dems.  He's been much criticized by the conservatives for doing so.

HAHAHAHAHA!  No wonder Obama likes to vote "PRESENT."

CAMPAIGN '08

Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes

He pushed the wrong button, he asserted at the time. Two of the admitted flubs were on hotly contested issues. 

By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 24, 2008

Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.

"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."

That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996. During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.

The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.

But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."

No one has accused Obama, now a U.S. senator and a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, of changing votes to play both sides, and an Obama spokesman called that idea "absurd."

But Obama has come under fire from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina for his frequent use of another oddity of Illinois politics: voting "present" rather than casting up-or-down votes on controversial measures.

"It is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern," Clinton told him in a debate Monday.

Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, said the mistaken votes were not meaningful. "In Illinois, legislators often have just a few seconds to cast a vote, so after thousands of votes they're bound to make a few mistakes," he said. Referring to Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her support for a bankruptcy measure, Vietor added, "The real problem is when Democrats vote like Republicans."

Four of Obama's admitted flubs drew little controversy.

On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6: "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.

He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics. On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops, I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."

On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.

Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."

A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.

Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.

Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the floor."

Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."

Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it."

peter.wallsten@latimes.com

Interesting discussions.   I'm glad that the Clinton campaign reacted immediately to Gloria Steinems's comments about McCain by saying that she did not share those views. 

Amy, to your comments:

I totally disagree with your different perspective. That's just the kind of game Clinton wants to get into to avoid the real issues.  Just to clarify, those are my thoughts alone - this isn't something coming from the Clinton campaign.  I was simply trying to make the point that if the Democrats had the same nomination process as the Republicans, Clinton would have come out of Super Tuesday with a huge lead.  How different everything since would have been.  As it is, the race is close to being a tie; Obama has momentum but he sure doesn't have a big lead.  There is certainly no consensus.  So it's premature to suggest that Clinton step down. 

The democrats don't have the same system as republicans, so your thoughts are a moot point.  True, it is a moot point.  But let's remember that the presidential election does have the same system as the Republicans.  And it's Clinton who has greater strength in the states that the Dems need to win the White House.  This is another reason why it's premature to call this for Obama, if you're serious about wanting the Dems to take the White House. 

Hillary has been adding in her superdelegates to make her seem closer to obama than she is and at times including Michigan and Florida, which she agreed would not count. Amy, to clarify again, the delegate count that I provided showing 48% for Clinton and 52% for Obama is from a neutral source and does not include Michigan and Florida.  

Interesting how she has lost 5 superdelegates to Obama's 39 gain-- that's because the party leaders want to back a winner. Yup, there's that old momentum thing again. Let's toss policy out the window.  Let's toss out the window our thoughts on who might actually be a better President.  Let's vote for the guy with momentum!  This is how the decision is being made.  This is a good thing?  In the long term, I think not.

Clinton claimed that the most important thing was to have the democrats back in the white house, but she is not acting that way. Ah, here I completely disagree (surprise!). First off, Clinton has been very careful in her choice of words; she has intentionally not said that Obama is not prepared to lead on day 1 (although she's been directly asked this twice during the recent debates).  It's quite clear that she is trying to not give the Republicans words that they can use against Obama, should he be the nominee.  She is doing this at her own expense.   Second, given the uncertainty about Obama's experience, I think it's important for the Democratic party that Clinton stay in the race.  Obama is untested.  It's starting to appear that he have peaked too early.  He may still mess up.  Let's say, for example, that it can be shown irrefutably that Obama lied about requesting that his advisor talk to the Canadian Ambassador about NAFTA.  What happens to his support then?  (BTW, his advisor has now admitted that he had a discussion with Canada but says that his statements have been misinterpreted.) What happens if McCain's attacks start to stick?  If by June it has started to become clear that Obama does not have the support to win the White House, by staying in the campaign, Clinton may save the Democrats.   (Okay, in truth I do think that if Clinton doesn't have a strong showing tomorrow, she probably will drop out, but personally I think that might be a costly mistake for the Dems.)

This is only to point out that there are different ways to view the situation....  not that we didn't already know that! 

As an aside, Michael Wilson, the Canadian Ambassador who is in the middle of this Obama NAFTA thing, was the member of parliament for my riding for years.  I've voted for him many times.  He's one of the few politicians that I highly respect and trust.  Strong character aside, he simply has no reason to lie about the discussion with Obama's advisor.  It may never be proven, but I'll put my money on the fact that Wilson is telling the truth. 

And here's the latest from the New Republic. 

After absolute denials by Obama himself and his campaign, they now acknowledge that the conversation did take place but that the discussion was outside of Goolsbee's official duties. (Hmmm.... Goolsbee is a senior advisor to the Obama campaign but he has time to meet with Canadian officials when he's off-duty?)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1979599/posts

The NAFTA Dance continues. After Canadian broadcaster CTV reported that Barack Obama's campaign told Canadian diplomats that his opposition to NAFTA was just campaign demagoguery, the Obama campaign denied any contacts at all. CTV then named Austan Goolsbee as the senior advisor who contacted the Canadian consulate in Chicago, telling Georges Rioux that the protectionist rhetoric should not be taken seriously, and Obama and Goolsbee continued their denials.

Now the Canadians themselves have taken the next step, releasing an internal report of the conversation, and Goolsbee now says he got misquoted:

Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser said Sunday that Canadian government officials wrote an inaccurate portrayal of his private discussion on the campaign's trade policy in a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

"This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

At least now we have confirmation that a conversation did take place, despite Team Obama's denials. Their story has changed since last week, when they claim the contact never occurred. Now, despite Goolsbee's status as a "senior policy adviser" with the campaign at least since last September when he appeared in Iowa in that capacity, the campaign now says that this call took place outside of his official duties. Instead, he met with the Canadians in his capacity as a University of Chicago professor.

Oh, really? The memo doesn't recount academic policy as a topic in the conversation. The 40-minute discussion involved the policies of Barack Obama, not the U of C. And why would the Canadian consulate want a meeting with Goolsbee about the university? Wouldn't they have sought out the school's administration instead?

Team Obama wants people to think that their candidate represents a new kind of politics. Instead, we see the same lies and obfuscations that Barack Obama likes to accuse others of indulging. They got caught talking out of both sides of their mouths, and after that they tried stonewalling and lying to make the story go away. (My italics and bolding.)

Clinton was not straightforward and hedged on the question about whether Obama might be Muslim?  Okay, and during the debate, Obama's response to Russert on Farrakhan was straightforward?  He tried to squirm out of "rejecting" Farrakhan's endorsement in every way he could.  What he said instead was that "I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments".  That doesn't sound to me like a rejection of Farrakhan or his endorsement.  It sounded more like he was trying to appease the Jewish population while at the same time holding on to the support of Farrakhan's followers.  That was a calculated response! Obama only conceded to "rejecting" Farrakhan's support after being cornered on the issue by Clinton.  

As for Clinton's response, I can certainly see why some might wonder whether she was intentionally trying to not be clear in her response to the 60 Minutes question about whether Obama is Muslim.  But I also wonder what she was supposed to say. Her initial response was pretty straightforward and if it had been left at that, I don't think anyone would be talking about it.  But Steve Croft continued to probe and that really put Clinton on the spot.  I can appreciate that she may have felt it inappropriate to say "I know for a fact that he's not Muslim" since she probably doesn't know this for a fact.  So to say that she takes him at his word seems reasonable.  In fact if you read the transcript, in 5 different ways she said that she didn't believe the allegations to be true. 

Here's the transcript.  I've highlighted and marked the 5 denials:

"You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

"(1)Of course not. I mean, that, you know, (2)there is no basis for that. (3)I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, (4) there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

" (5) No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.

"It's just scurrilous...?" Kroft inquired.

"Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time," Clinton said.

BTW, to the point "I wish Obama would say, when he explains that he's not muslim, that even if he was muslim, it shouldn't be an issue because of religious freedom and that it's not ok to be prejudiced against a religion.", I AGREE!  I was so frustrated when the picture came out last week of Obama in native African dress and everyone, including the Obama campaign, talked about the picture being a smear.  What in the world was wrong with that picture?  He was in Africa and he put on native attire.  Bush does that on many of his foreign trips.  And in any case, my understanding is that he was visiting the area where his father was from, so why didn't he respond that he was proud of that picture because it showed him connecting with his heritage?  He missed a real slam-dunk opportunity. 

I was watching CNN tonight, and there was talk that Clinton had done some "mudslinging" with TV ads against Obama. Anyone see any of those? For some reason they are not seen here in Central Coast area. I know they were directed towards voters in Ohio & Texas. CNN was saying that Clinton won because of those ads. Just wanted to know what the hoopla was all about.



In a way I'm okay with the results for tonight. I think both candidates need to get into the nitty gritty of what they intend to actually accomplish as President. I must need to listen closer and watch for all of Clinton's speeches, because I keep hearing she is qualified to get right to work on Day 1, but she doesn't seem to give me enough particulars. Maybe that's coming as these campaigns get down to the wire.



What do you think Obama will do with the negative ads being run against him? Will he fight back and produce negative ads about Clinton? Will he be able to fight back and remain above board as he wants to stay.



You are right Beesie--getting more and more so.



I bet the voters in PA are a little mad at their government for not passing the legislation in a timely matter.



Or maybe they are jumping up and down because the analysts are saying that this primary may decide the nominee.



Onward & onward,



grace