Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Amy,

Blue collar workeres should have as much say as the ones with college degrees. You sound a bit condensending here. A man who works hard to put food on the table knows more than a student who hasn't had any real responsibilities. 

I spent every summer in Pennsylvania until recently (in Equinock, in rural Wayne county), and I still have lots of family living there.  My niece and her family are delighted they'll probably get to choose the Democratic nominee. But then I don't know everyone in Pennsylvania, so I can only echo the opinions of those that I do know. Pennsylvania is one of those states that only permits registered Democrats to vote, so we won't see the cross over effect we've seen in some of the other primaries, where registered Republicans return to their party in the general election. As such, it should be a bellwether of how Democrats will vote in the fall.

I doubt strongly that Amy had the intention of putting down blue collar workers. After all, it's blue collar workers that made the Democrat Party what it is today. Both my parents were blue collar workers and my mother, a citizen but also an immigrant, was a Democratic committee woman for some fifty years.  I'd hate to even remotely think that the Democratic Party would today consider her a less than worthy voter.  And, of course, it doesn't.  Because she worked outside the home until she was seventy-two, I became one of those wine drinking, cheese eating, college educated, metropolitan types, albeit one voting for Hillary.

The negative ad that Obama's campaign is referring to is the 3:00 a.m. phone ringing ad which has, I believe, been shown all over the country on Cable TV.  How that ad can be viewed as negative is beyond me, since it states in simplest visual terms what Clinton has been saying all along--that she is most qualified on day one to be commander in chief.  Whether you agree or not is different from calling it a negative ad.  I believe what the Obama campaign is particularly angry at is what some are now calling, Obama-gate:  the rightful fuss being made over the fact (and now it's proven to be a fact) that a high-level Obama aide met with high-level Canadians to suggest that Canada might want to discount some of the campaign rhetoric on NAFTA.  I don't think the Clinton campaign has done enough with this.  If I were Clinton's campaign manager, I'd try to get it splashed across every headline in every paper in America.  This is serious stuff and John McCain will use it for sure.  Why shouldn't he, as it speaks to Obama's sincerity, or lack thereof.

Hi Grace,

Point well taken some students do in fact have a lot of responsibilites. But I think they are overall in minority. And you are right it could be a blue collar woman or man.

But I understood Amy saying that she would not want PA blue collar workers to chose a Democratic nominee.  And that was the point I was debating. If I misunderstood her comment, I aplogize.

Grace, I agree totally, that so long as the Democratic primary continues, McCain will be secondary news, and that's not good for McCain. In this country, it's all about attention, and he won't be getting much while Clinton and Obama fight it out.  Also, constant discussions of the economy and how awful it is (coming from both Democratic candidates) keeps McCain from setting the agenda.  I think it's great that this will go to the convention.  I actually remember the days when the nominee was decided at the convention, and it was exciting and really got the base excited for the general.  McCain will seem like a dead bore by the time the convention rolls around. (Sorry, Susie, but I do believe this to be true!)  And the economy is getting worse, so this will be totally to the Democrat's advantage.  

I don't agree that Clinton's 3:00 ad can in any way be viewed as mud-slinging.  Mud slinging means pointing to something that's happened in a candidate's personal or political life in a negative way--usually personal, but some times political.  Clinton's claim to fame here is that she is more experienced to be the Commander-in-Chief.  Her ad shows her in a positive light--if that strikes a chord in the voter's mind that Obama may not have the same experience, then it's a good ad, nothing more.  Ads are supposed to win elections, so obviously the candidate wants to run a good ad and not echo the same old rhetoric one hears in a stump speech.

Actually, Obama's constant hammer that she voted for the war could just as easily be viewed as negative, although I think that would be silly as well.  She did vote for the war, and it's the single thing he can use against her, so why wouldn't he?

What would really be mud slinging is if Clinton ran an ad showing two men (looking like Obama and Refsko) walking around the property in Chicago with some background music from the Godfather!  Maybe I should send Clinton my suggestion. LOL

Or in Obama's case, showing any clip or reference to Monica or Bill Clinton's impeachment, which I can't imagine him doing, or bringing up any of the old scandals from Bill's days in the White House.

Grace, as you know I quit the other political thread, and immediately after one of your posts.  My leaving that thread had absolutely nothing to do with anything you had written, there or anywhere else. We may disagree on our preferred candidate, but I've enjoyed the debate immensely and hope we can continue it here.  

Anne Shirley-there are too many negative ads coming from Hillary's camp to mention, the 3:00 am one wasn't even on the list. I'm not sure where you got that the 3:00 am one was even on the list. Hillary saying she and McCain are qualified and Obama isn't-- now that's nasty.

Grace- thanks for explaining the blue collar thing. The demographics show that blue collar workers are more for Clinton and college educated people voting more for Obama than clinton. Innia misinterpretted what I was saying-- perhaps she hasn't been following the election coverage and listened to this information.

Hillary Clinton posts all her ads on her website for as long as they're being run.  It's very easy for each of us to judge for ourselves whether she's run any negative ads.  Go to her website, www.hillaryclinton.com, look around and you'll find her recent ads.  In my view, most of her ads are soooo boring! And, in my opinion, none of them are negative.

I should also add that the general blog is now gone (I wrote what I thought were some thoughtful pieces on health care, feminism, etc. which are also gone. Unfortunately, I write directly in the comment boxes so I can 't retrieve them.)  My understanding is that the users' blog was removed because of the racist and sexist rants that were becoming more frequent by the day. As I wrote yesterday, Clinton's campaign has been very proactive in removing anything that even hints of a racial or religious bias towards Obama.  It was less active in removing stuff directed at Clinton.  At times, there were more Obama bloggers there than Hillary bloggers and the stuff they said was easily as ugly as some of the stuff said by Hillary's supporters, worse even, as there was more of it.  I decided in the end that perhaps the Republicans were trying to set the two groups against one another and I stopped posting. (I'm kidding, honest!)

Beesie--our posts are always crossing.  There's very little, if any, mention of what Obama said about Kerry's vote for the war in 2004, when Obama was supporting Kerry and, more important, Kerry was supporting Obama.  When asked about Kerry's position, he said (I'm paraphrasing but I can find exact words if anyone wants them) that he was not in the Senate at the time, that he wasn't voting, and that he did not have the intelligence information that Kerry had, so he couldn't say how he might have voted.  He said the same about Clinton's vote later in an interview with a magazine.  He also voted for funding the war, when other, more courageous senators, not running for president, voted against the funding.  His record is not consistent.  Oh, and he missed the vote on the Iran resolution.     

I went to the Democratic caucus last night.  They were not prepared for the turn-out of voters.  They didn't do a good job here in Texas to tell us about voting in the caucus because I'd think that even more would have turned out.  It was important because 1/3 of the Texas delegates gets picked for each candidate.  Clearly there were more Obama voters there then Hillary, at least at my precinct voting.

Anyway, I signed up to be a delegate.  Wouldn't this be a hoot if I wind up on the convention floor wearing a straw hat.  Somehow I think that honor goes to the cronies.  At least I'll get to see how this whole process works till I'm dumped.

I really think that the parents of the guys and gals over in Iraq are praying that we vote for a candidate that will try to get their children home.

If we leave, they might stop their civil war.  They're using us as an excuse to keep blowing themselves up.  Viet Nam keeps looming in my mind.  We stayed on for absolutely no reason, and when we left, they got back to their normal lives, and in peace. 

Rosemary--I hope you get picked.  What fun!  Can you take me along as an alternate?

I loved your suggestion to Hillary about the godfather music & Obama w/his "financial" friend. I got a good chuckle out of that.



Yes, I share your view, Susie. And if it were reversed, I don't see Obama accepting a VP nomination w/Hillary running the show. They are both strong candidates. I was kind of hoping Edwards would end up in there as a VP but it appears that won't happen. I'm leaning towards Bill Richardson. I think he would be a great VP addition for either Hillary or Obama.



Does anyone think McCain will ask Huckabee to be his VP, so he can gain more of the conservative vote? Or is he going to look for someone more liberal and try for the Independent & other small parties' votes?



It will be very exciting and interesting to see how this plays out. It it certainly bringing out the younger voters on the Central Coast area of California. Seems that 's happening all over.



I too would like to see an exciting convention. And an exciting series of debates. Politics is much more interesting this time around.



grace

"Does anyone think McCain will ask Huckabee to be his VP.."

Uh-uh. 

I agree with Susie. I don't think McCain will pick Huckabee.  Romney would be a good balance pick, for the economy, but I think there's too much dislike there.  I sure hope he doesn't pick Giuliani. A woman would be interesting but I think he'll be playing it safe.  I don't know Republicans enough to make any suggestions.

I can't imagine Hillary accepting second position.  I would pefer it the other way around.  But like Grace I really like Bill Richardson, but he may be viewed as too lay back.  We shall see!

Which convention comes first. I can't remember? 

Susie--Thanks for convention dates.  I just read an article on this very subject in the Times.  It mentioned some of those,  but not all.  One that seemed to stand out was Crist.  That would make sense since Florida is so all important in the national elections.  I was watching a TV show where Rice was asked if she would take the position.  She was absolute that she wouldn't accept the VP spot, or any political spot.  She says she's going back to California--I assume to teach at Stanford.

As much as I love Obama, I think he would make a better presidential and vp nominee. Historically the VP is the one who attacks at full speed while the presidential candidate tries to stay above the fray. Hillary is the expert at negative campaigning--she's risen it to an art form since her husband's presidency. Obama is uncomfortable in that position.

I think Hillary needs Obama, because of his ability to energize people, particularly young people usually have a smaller percentage of voters than older folks.

I do not think Obama needs Hillary, because her negatives are way too high, near 50%. Negatives mean people who said they will never vote for her, under any circumstances, not just people who don't like her. Those are hard numbers to overcome.