USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

... OTOH, we have some self-declared moderate Dems who have said they might vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. That does not sound at all like a Democrat to me.

To be honest, if Connecticut had "open" primaries, I'd register Independent. But I prefer to have a say in the nomination process, and it can be inconvenient to switch affiliation back and forth.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

Truer words were never spoken. Clinton is a turn off. If the Democrats don't realize the disconnect between Hillary and the population, they do deserve what the get.

Personally - I generally tend to agree with Hillary's stand on the issues a bit more than Obamas. That said - look at my signature.

For me, it is ALL about getting a Democrat back in the White House! If that is a priority for you ask yourselves the following: How many of your right leaning friends have indicated that they would be willing to break party lines to vote for Obama, and how many have indicated the would be willing to break party lines to vote for Hillary.

EVERY DAY I hear from rightie after rightie that they would consider voting for Obama and yet (despite the GREAT overlap between their policies) they would rather eat broken glass than vote for Hillary. I suspect many of you have had the same experience.

Hillary is as polarizing a figure as George W. Bush, Obama is very much NOT a polarizing figure - that's what matters to me as a Democrat.



Nominating Hillary, IMHO, is paramount to the Democratic party once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - something us Democrats are (sadly) getting used to.

[roni]

Originally Posted by MWC

I did not mean the essay itself was sophomoric.

Okay, I misunderstood what you had written.

thanks for the clarification

Ron

[roni]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I thinks its silly to be so indoctorinated that you wouldnt consider voting for the best candidate regardless of party.

I disagree that it is indoctrination. I am voting for the best candidate regardless of party - it is just that the best candidate over the past 30 years or so in national elections has usually been a Democrat.

The day when there existed an abundance of moderate to liberal Republican candidates is largely in the past. McCain is certainly not one. So, I would rather vote for the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton than for the party of Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.

Call it whatever you want to.

[MWC]

Originally Posted by MikeW

As for McCain running-mate, if he makes it, will not be either Lieberman or Huckabee, I doubt it is Romney. Lieberman is a cabinet member, but will not rock the boat by being on the ticket. Huckabee, I just don't see it working. Romney, he's out because no one knew where he stood on issues, not because he's Mormon, how would someone like that work as a running mate; probably not well.

I do see a scenario where Romney as McCain's VP could be a win-win proposition. (Not that I truly want that ) If he could be empowered to act as the administration's "economy czar" ... I think that would let Romney work to his strengths in a way that would complement McCain's weaknesses. So, win for McCain.

Win for Romney in that it gives him a national stage on which to showcase his capabilities in the one area where success eclipses all other doubts: voter pocketbook issues. If he brings dynamic, innovative solutions (that work), he would be well-poised to go for the nomination in 2012.

[MWC]

Originally Posted by roni

I disagree that it is indoctrination. I am voting for the best candidate regardless of party - it is just that the best candidate over the past 30 years or so in national elections has usually been a Democrat.

The day when there existed an abundance of moderate to liberal Republican candidates is largely in the past. McCain is certainly not one. So, I would rather vote for the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton than for the party of Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.

Call it whatever you want to.

Certainly the frothing-at-the-mouth types have grabbed the limelight and public agenda. But I'm not ready to agree completely with what I have bolded. I think one of the big "behind the scenes" stories that has yet to come out is the degree to which liberal, moderate and even "reasonable" conservative Republicans played a significant role in stonewalling the W/Cheney agenda, to prevent our standing from being worse than it is right now.

But yes, I normally vote for Democratic candidates as well -- certainly at a national level.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by roni

I disagree that it is indoctrination. I am voting for the best candidate regardless of party - it is just that the best candidate over the past 30 years or so in national elections has usually been a Democrat.

The day when there existed an abundance of moderate to liberal Republican candidates is largely in the past. McCain is certainly not one. So, I would rather vote for the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton than for the party of Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.

Call it whatever you want to.

I already called it what I think it is.

[roni]

Originally Posted by MWC

To be honest, if Connecticut had "open" primaries, I'd register Independent. But I prefer to have a say in the nomination process, and it can be inconvenient to switch affiliation back and forth.

I used to be registered as an independent. My old Uncle Chad, a farmer in rural Southern Missouri and an old New Deal Democrat looked at me for a time after I told him that. He ended up saying:

Well, Ronnie, as long as you don't vote for any Republicans, I guess that is all right.

Several years earlier, when I was 14, he told all of us cousins that if it wasn't for FDR, he wouldn't have anything.

[Sol]

Originally Posted by roni

Judith Warner - Domestic Disturbances - Opinion - New York Times Blog
Whole essay is well worth a read.

Warner makes some interesting remarks. I see her perspective as one dimension of feminisim; it does not represent feminism as a whole. Indeed, the intention of the first wave of the feminist movement was "was to bring out the madwoman from the attic to make the world better" but unfortunately this left out women of color and/or did not go to college. The feminism of the 60's was primarily a movement that originated in universities and in groups of privledged women. Unfortunately, some indviduals only see this dimension of feminism and are unaware that there are other kinds of feminism that are a result or a reaction to the first wave of feminism. We don't come from the same cookie cutter. Little discussed is anti-racism, anti-sexism feminism. To clarify, anti-sexism in the sense that men will not be discriminated against because of sex and gender.
I don't have much in common with her because we look at feminism differently and other reasons such as the different aspects of background. I do see her as disillusioned, but when dealing with some type of movement its important to take precautions to not become too idyllic. I agree that sometimes that it appears as if no progress as been made, but at the same time it does not hold for all men or women. Indeed, there is more work to be done, but as corny as this might sound, it is exciting to see progress in the making.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Hillary is as polarizing a figure as George W. Bush, Obama is very much NOT a polarizing figure - that's what matters to me as a Democrat.

Nominating Hillary, IMHO, is paramount to the Democratic party once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - something us Democrats are (sadly) getting used to.

Well as I've said I certainly see the latter danger and fear it, as well. And I've also said (like many) that it has seemed consistently clear from a variety of perspectives and for some time now that Obama's chances in the general election are better than Clinton's.

But you know, I think it's more than "just" a question of electability. It's not as one-dimensional or as cynical as "just get any Democrat in the White House." The darker way to phrase what I said earlier about Republicans being better at circling the wagons and rallying 'round a candidate regardless of differences with him/her would be to say that they're happy to sell out their ideals on some issues to "just get any Republican in the White House." So I don't want to go that route, actually.

But I think people tend to miss this: Obama is not more electable only because Clinton's past and high negatives make her less electable, Obama is more electable also because of his own positives, especially his approach to everything, which is diametrically opposed to hers (as much as their specific views and goals might be generally quite similar).

He's pretty clearly unification and cooperation and reaching out and mutual respect, while she's pretty clearly division and bickering and toughness and "I will not be Swift Boated!" Again you can already see the same old division and partisan bickering coming out in that taunt of hers to Republicans (before she's even got the nomination!). Can you imagine Obama standing up and saying "I will not be Swift Boated!" like that, taunting the other side, and before even being nominated? Difficult at at the very least.

It cannot be missed that people don't want that -- on the contrary, people are sick of that. And it won't get us anywhere on the important issues, either. Obama quite rightly took Clinton to task in an early debate on health care, for example -- obviously a central issue for Dems if not for everyone -- telling her that one reason for the Clinton failure to get something passed in the first administration was their failure to reach out and include the other side(s) in the talks and work together in the spirit of cooperation, instead of going the closed door, partisan fight route. He precisely does reach out and listen and cooperate. He has already done it, on issues ranging from such social concerns to defense and international security, teaming with Republicans as well as Democrats to get something done. He really seems to approach his work with the same attitude that many share here: in his view, party affiliation is not the deciding factor in whether someone can get something good done or not, their character and reasoning and integrity are the deciding factors in that. That is to say, he doesn't just judge a politician by his/her party.

Personally I think his "cover 96%" or whatever health care plan, doing away with the need for enforcement on those few who insist on not paying, is probably a nod in precisely that direction, and just a realism about things in general and about the political will on this issue, in particular. I'd much, much rather have his health care plan passed then her plan rejected, which is surely what will happen. (You have to be smoking something rather strong to think Republicans in Congress are ever going to go along with a Hillary Clinton-authored single payer universal health care plan, even if she did the unimaginable and won a landslide victory in the general election. Maybe she should also author and submit a bill to forfeit US sovereignty to the UN or something.)

I mean, as much as I might rant on it, I can at least see that we won't change the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, as right as I may think that move would be, because of the disagreements over the issue and the political will and just the inordinately high level of difficulty that attempt would present. I can see that despite not have spent decades in politics or having any firsthand experience. So I can go focus instead on a compromise that would get a lot of the same thing done, and certainly a whole lot more than nothing done, by trying to work towards the idea of States doing a proportional distribution instead. This is realism and pragmatism, not selling out your ideals (as she repeatedly blames him for doing on the issue, in a shamelessly misleading effort). So why can't she see, especially given her firsthand experience in politics, that no matter how right she may think the idea is, she'll never get a single payer universal health care plan passed, and that it would be better to go with a compromise that lets in the other side and listens to their concerns and has a real chance of passing and would get much of the same accomplished, rather than just endless fighting and a quagmire and nothing done, in the end -- especially since she saw precisely the latter all from the front row and firsthand during the first couple of years of the first administration? As Wallace Shawn would say, it's inconCEIVable!

People usually say Obama runs to the left of her, and that she's the moderate, but I think he's more of the moderate, and that that kind of positioning and that kind of approach to political action are also what's attractive from the perspective of moderate independents and Republicans, just as they are from the perspective of many Dems. It's not like Dems are the only ones sick of the old ways in Washington and Republicans are all thrilled about them, you know.

And so it's not just "go with him because he doesn't piss them off like she does," it's "go with him because he presents a clear break with the politics of the past that so many voters on both sides of the aisle have said they're all so sick of, with his focus not on toughness and fighting and taunting those in the other party about election tactics and so forth, but instead on mutual respect and listening and talking and working together for the good of everyone."

IMO.

Steve

[ryberg]

And incidentally, I think McCain represents about the same thing on the Republican side, and that's why Democrats respect him and like him, and some might consider voting for him. He represents the willingness to reach across the aisle and work with the other side as well as his own to get done what he thinks needs to get done. He's done it on stem cell research, for example, from what I understand, an issue near and dear to your own heart, Roni, and has also done it on campaign finance reform, for another example. But when they look at him, what they like is his approach, his integrity to say something his side might not like so much, if he thinks it's right, and his bipartisan take on things.

By contrast I think Clinton represents for the Dems the same thing some Republican voters are upset about not having: a sort of hard-core party fighter in the old mold, whom they can feel sure about in terms of not "giving in" too much to the other side. But again, that's the old way...

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well as I've said I certainly see the latter danger and fear it, as well. And I've also said (like many) that it has seemed consistently clear from a variety of perspectives and for some time now that Obama's chances in the general election are better than Clinton's.

But you know, I think it's more than "just" a question of electability. It's not as one-dimensional or as cynical as "just get any Democrat in the White House." The darker way to phrase what I said earlier about Republicans being better at circling the wagons and rallying 'round a candidate regardless of differences with him/her would be to say that they're happy to sell out their ideals on some issues to "just get any Republican in the White House." So I don't want to go that route, actually.

But I think people tend to miss this: Obama is not more electable only because Clinton's past and high negatives make her less electable, Obama is more electable also because of his own positives, especially his approach to everything, which is diametrically opposed to hers (as much as their specific views and goals might be generally quite similar).

He's pretty clearly unification and cooperation and reaching out and mutual respect, while she's pretty clearly division and bickering and toughness and "I will not be Swift Boated!" Again you can already see the same old division and partisan bickering coming out in that taunt of hers to Republicans (before she's even got the nomination!). Can you imagine Obama standing up and saying "I will not be Swift Boated!" like that, taunting the other side, and before even being nominated? Difficult at at the very least.

It cannot be missed that people don't want that -- on the contrary, people are sick of that. And it won't get us anywhere on the important issues, either. Obama quite rightly took Clinton to task in an early debate on health care, for example -- obviously a central issue for Dems if not for everyone -- telling her that one reason for the Clinton failure to get something passed in the first administration was their failure to reach out and include the other side(s) in the talks and work together in the spirit of cooperation, instead of going the closed door, partisan fight route. He precisely does reach out and listen and cooperate. He has already done it, on issues ranging from such social concerns to defense and international security, teaming with Republicans as well as Democrats to get something done. He really seems to approach his work with the same attitude that many share here: in his view, party affiliation is not the deciding factor in whether someone can get something good done or not, their character and reasoning and integrity are the deciding factors in that. That is to say, he doesn't just judge a politician by his/her party.

Personally I think his "cover 96%" or whatever health care plan, doing away with the need for enforcement on those few who insist on not paying, is probably a nod in precisely that direction, and just a realism about things in general and about the political will on this issue, in particular. I'd much, much rather have his health care plan passed then her plan rejected, which is surely what will happen. (You have to be smoking something rather strong to think Republicans in Congress are ever going to go along with a Hillary Clinton-authored single payer universal health care plan, even if she did the unimaginable and won a landslide victory in the general election. Maybe she should also author and submit a bill to forfeit US sovereignty to the UN or something.)

I mean, as much as I might rant on it, I can at least see that we won't change the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, as right as I may think that move would be, because of the disagreements over the issue and the political will and just the inordinately high level of difficulty that attempt would present. I can see that despite not have spent decades in politics or having any firsthand experience. So I can go focus instead on a compromise that would get a lot of the same thing done, and certainly a whole lot more than nothing done, by trying to work towards the idea of States doing a proportional distribution instead. This is realism and pragmatism, not selling out your ideals (as she repeatedly blames him for doing on the issue, in a shamelessly misleading effort). So why can't she see, especially given her firsthand experience in politics, that no matter how right she may think the idea is, she'll never get a single payer universal health care plan passed, and that it would be better to go with a compromise that lets in the other side and listens to their concerns and has a real chance of passing and would get much of the same accomplished, rather than just endless fighting and a quagmire and nothing done, in the end -- especially since she saw precisely the latter all from the front row and firsthand during the first couple of years of the first administration? As Wallace Shawn would say, it's inconCEIVable!

People usually say Obama runs to the left of her, and that she's the moderate, but I think he's more of the moderate, and that that kind of positioning and that kind of approach to political action are also what's attractive from the perspective of moderate independents and Republicans, just as they are from the perspective of many Dems. It's not like Dems are the only ones sick of the old ways in Washington and Republicans are all thrilled about them, you know.

And so it's not just "go with him because he doesn't piss them off like she does," it's "go with him because he presents a clear break with the politics of the past that so many voters on both sides of the aisle have said they're all so sick of, with his focus not on toughness and fighting and taunting those in the other party about election tactics and so forth, but instead on mutual respect and listening and talking and working together for the good of everyone."

IMO.

Steve

I hope Obama is paying you for this stuff!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I hope Obama is paying you for this stuff!

Nope.

I just found out that my sister was in the room when this happened this morning:

Six dead as gunman 'goes to war' with Missouri city

Apparently she was hiding under a bench the man was standing on.

Steve

[Sol]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Nope.

I just found out that my sister was in the room when this happened this morning:

Six dead as gunman 'goes to war' with Missouri city

Apparently she was hiding under a bench the man was standing on.

Steve

This is so awful. Besides being unharmed is she doing OK?

[MWC]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Nope.

I just found out that my sister was in the room when this happened this morning:

Six dead as gunman 'goes to war' with Missouri city

Apparently she was hiding under a bench the man was standing on.

Steve

Wow. I am so glad for all of you that she is okay. What a horrible thing, the gunman sounded like a ticking timebomb ...