We need one.
As important as the debates are tonight, I really am not sure I can watch another one. Are there really people who have not made up their minds yet?
by John Cole| 64 Comments
This post is in: Site Maintenance
We need one.
As important as the debates are tonight, I really am not sure I can watch another one. Are there really people who have not made up their minds yet?
Comments are closed.
Bob In Pacifica
In a better world this debate would be about issues, about solutions, would define the two candidates while defining their differences from Bush and McCain.
In reality, this will be one of those debates where Obama will try to remain above the fray while Clinton will be looking for a “gotcha” big enough to rescue her campaign. It’ll be like a boxing match where one boxer has earned the decision while the other is looking for a 15th-round knockout.
There may be entertainment value, but don’t expect to be enlightened.
Except, see how hard the media tries to find a “gotcha” versus whether or not there was one. Then you can measure how hard they are rooting for one candidate or another.
If there is one group that I dislike more than Paultards and Hillarybots, it’s the “I haven’t made up my mind yet” folks.
Dennis - SGMM
Unintentional irony from Clinton’s speech, yesterday at Hunter College:
Ten states ago would have been an opportune time to get real about winning. Thirty five years ago would have been the perfect time to get real about anything, Senator.
Clinton goes on:
Voting to allow the invasion of a country that didn’t attack us on the word of an idiot is not to be ready to be commander in chief.
peach flavored shampoo
Steven Clemons over at thewashingtonnote.com is floating the “Obama should choose Hillary and vice-versa” trial balloon w/r/t a running mate.
Yikes. Taylor Marsh will be looking to OD if that happens. I do feel, however, it’d be a great paring — political savvy plus charisma plus (relative) youth versus a Dirty Old Man With Giant Jowels running with a Jesus Freak.
Land’eff’in slide in November.
Yes, there are some of us undecideds. I live in Pennsylvania, and I might actually get a vote this time.
I was an Edwards supporter — I think Obama and Clinton each have strong positives, some definite negatives, and each comes with a different set of risks.
After Edwards dropped out, I leaned Clinton. After the way her campaign has conducted itself (and how Bill conducted himself in SC) I have been leaning Obama. But the sale isn’t made yet.
So let’s not automatically denigrate the undecideds this time around. We have two strong, but flawed, candidates who are similar on many, if not most, of the issues. And while five-point plans may differ, I know enough about history to know that once in office, stuff’s going to come up you don’t have a five-point plan for yet — and when you vote you’re betting that the person behind the desk will make the best decisions. So no, I am legitimately still on the fence, though leaning.
I keep thinking about Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think Kennedy’s finest moment was realizing that he could answer the first telegram, and pretend the second telegram hadn’t arrived. That was witty. I doubt too many people thought the Kennedy would face a crisis like that, and may not have thought about how he’d react. But that one deft move was in keeping with what we now recognize as his game-playing, whimsical nature.
I’m trying to guess how Obama or Clinton will roll with the unexpected — what instincts will click in…..it’s a tough call.
I don’t want Hillary’s people anywhere near a President Obama. Those Grima Wormtongue motherfuckers can work in the private sector somewhere.
Sorry, but she has consistently shown terrible judgement when it comes to who she surrounds herself with.
Oh I can think of another. That would be the so-called Centrists who voted for Bush the second time around, and then expressed shock|dismay|disappointment|whatever at his performance.
If you haven’t figured it out by now, you never will.
Go ahead and think on it some more. Maybe by the inauguration you can get around to casting a ballot.
Not to pile on, but isn’t it clear by now from their past actions? Obama’s instinct is to extend a hand and make you part of the movement. Hillary’s instinct is to destory those in her way, and reward those already with her. It doesn’t really get clearer than what we have seen the past month since Hillary started to lose.
Some people just aren’t that into politics and start paying attention when it’s time to vote. Weird, I know.
Billy, you’re scaring the Pony. Be nice. Lots of people don’t make up their minds until the last week or day or even hour before they vote. I would rather have people deciding at the last minute than not voting at all because they think the 2 candidates are essentially the same.
John McCain is a ridiculous candidate, the man supports war crimes! I’m beginning to wonder if the homosexual discrimination talk of last election and the toture talk of this election is merely a product of the GOP testing the loyalty of its electorate. I can see them now, thinking “if we can convince them to discriminate against their peers and agree to torture other people, then perhaps we can get them to concede the rest of their human rights to us.” First we have Reagan stomping out most of our labor unions, then we have George W. Bush illegally spying on us, and now we have John McCain touting torture? It’s time to stand up for our human rights while we still have some, or else it will be too late.
Check out this article for more on torture:
Torture isn’t an issue, it’s a war crime.
Well said. But woe to the business dumb enough to hire these idiots.
I used to think that if Clinton somehow won the nomination, she’d HAVE to bring Obama on as VP, while if/when Obama wins, he MIGHT bring on Clinton as VP.
Ha ha on me. =)
It’s pretty obvious that neither one will be on the other’s ticket this fall. And that’s fine – at this point, I’m okay with whomever President-to-be Obama brings on at the convention…
The Other Steve
I think if Hillary loses the nomination, it will largely be because Democrats didn’t want a Bush or Clinton on the ticket. They wanted something different.
As such, I think she would be a poor choice for VP.
I could see Bill Richardson though.
I got the impression Zmulls was trying to weigh more their crisis-management, thinking-on-your-feet type skills. Which weirdly, is not anything I’d particularly thought about before.
I pick Obama, though, mostly because I get the feeling he wouldn’t have to survey the country to find out where the point of the triangle is before making a decision.
Nice. Also, Biden. Maybe Hagel.
Bill Richardson will not be his choice.
Obama/Richardson. Need a non-DC voice in there and he has foreign policy mojo.
NPR was playing this quote from Blondie speech: “We need sound solutions, not sound bytes.” Ironic how that became a sound byte, disingenuous because it was intended.
I think you shouldn’t jump to all sorts of conclusions about who’s paying attention and who’s not. I’ve been a junkie since I was 16 (if I weren’t a junkie, would I be here?)
And I have been watching the race, and sorted through all the candidates and realized that Edwards and Dodd were the two that I really could get behind. Since Dodd was going nowhere I was very much behind Edwards and held out (small, dwindling) hope until the very end. Still think he was the best candidate, and would make the best President.
While making that decision (because at the outset, the *last* guy I wanted to see running was Edwards, or Kerry, but I was convinced), I sorted through Clinton and Obama and rejected them both. Now one is going to be the nominee.
And JC, that’s pretty much my thinking. I was leaning Clinton because of the “nuts and bolts” argument, but I have been thoroughly disgusted by the campaign, and I know it’s coming from the top. I will almost certainly go for Obama because the thought of Mark Penn in the Karl Rove Memorial Chair in the White House just gives me the skeeves.
But one thing I’ve had to sort out is all the unfair slime that’s been heaped at Hilary Clinton over the last 16 years. No human being should have to endure what’s been thrown at her (lesbian castrating ice queen bitch who had torrid affairs with men and women and killed her lover in the park to cover up her illegal records, etc., etc.) And whenever that crap starts up again I have a surge of sympathy for her. I really don’t want to hear the usual suspects on the right crowing about how they buried her.
And I give her a lot of props for sheer hard work and a superior grasp of just about every issue — while you may disagree on her final take or solution, all reports are that she can talk your ear backwards and forwards about the details of just about anything (much like Bill C.). And her work ethic is a huge plus.
Also, a President doesn’t have to be a nice person — reading Caro’s bio of LBJ is a real rollercoaster, because I’m not sure a more despicable human being ever sat in the Oval Office — the guy was a sociopathic monster — but man, did he get things done when he wanted. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts might not have gotten through without his fierce determination to roll over the Southern Coalition, at least not for another generation.
So….I have to sort through all that, push through any sympathy I have for Hilary Clinton (cause I won’t vote for her just because he’s being unfairly targetted), and I have to sort through any misgivings about her probably conduct in office (because with some Presidents, that’s how they get the job done).
But all that said, after sorting through all that, I’m disgusted enough with the Clinton campaign, and encouraged enough about Obama’s ability to fight hard when necessary to move towards him. I’m sure everyone on this board has gone through similar processes — not everyone gets to the end at the same time.
And it’s not for want of paying attention.
One real advantage to this primary turning out the way it is, is that Obama is being rewarded precisely for having the better thinking on his feet and organizational skills that a president would need.
I’m half tempted to say that in 2012, the primary order should be completely random, the system for each state should be random, and candidates are told about them a week in advance.
(To give an example, imagine people are told today, “The next state is Kansas, they’ll vote on the 28th, and it’ll be a caucus,” or something)
She’s descending into farce now.
I wish all my enemies did was say bad things about me. ‘Poor, poor pitiful me’ was her first song and will be her last.
Am I mistake or is the act of a sitting senator being cozy with a lobbyist who may have legislation before said sitting senator sort of the sleazy, Washington politics as usual that we all loathe?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
To people that have cast a wide net, even sifting through absolute shit, yes.
But some people are civilized, or have very demanding jobs, and read the news passively. And some of those people might be still be befuddled by Clinton’s campaign tactics, and haven’t gotten the smoke out of their eyes yet.
Don’t worry, Clinton hasn’t managed to display any sort of leadership-worthy qualities, and I don’t think that’s about to change.
Pointed out elsewhere, beware the Shiny Shit:
*Liberal media made this happen.
*Sex/mistress angle of story.
Focus on the cozy with lobbyist corruption angle.
P.S. Cindy McCain is obviously lying when she says the man she had an affair with is a man of honor.
JESUS H. FUCKING CHRIST.
Has anyone had the misfortune of seeing today’s Day By Day by that uber-wanker Chris “I Cry Myself To Sleep While Masturbating to Comics” Miur?
Pure class. Michelle Obama is a Nazi. What a fuckstain.
Nothing about the McCain story yet? Who here is impressed that it was alleged to be consensual, with a non-paid off adult female? I mean, that’s the Holy Grail of Republican sex scandals right there. Vitter, Craig, Sherwood, Santorum, and Foley must be pissed.
Really? “Destroy those in her way”… in a campaign. If The Left could be confident she would take the same approach while in office, she would be a lot more popular. Hell, one of the main complaints about Obama (correct or not) is that he’s too conciliatory.
A real debate would be nice.
The debates we get are more like concurrent interviews.
Yeah, I saw that one. Nothing Muir does surprises me anymore. I remember when the right side of the blogosphere discussed the top 10 worst Americans of all time. Most were fairly well reasoned. Most kept Ted Kennedy and Billy Carter out of their top 10. I was pleasantly surprised at Captain Ed’s. Honestly, it was one of the most interesting reads I’ve seen on the net, and I learned a fair bit about American history. J Edgar Hoover was his number one. You can click through to see his list, and I highly recommend it. It’s a good read, despite Ed’s recent descent into hackery. Anyhow, guess who Mr. Mammary Obsession had as his #’1 and 2? Bill and Hillary Clinton. Yep, worse than Hoover, Arnold, the Rosenbergs, etc. Pathetic. I hate George Bush, nut he’s not even close to my top 10.
This, I get. But I assume anyone here has been paying more attention than your “average citizen.” I also understand different people work different ways and they have to come to conclusions in their own way, on their own schedule.
That said, if you haven’t seen enough to figure it out by now, you’re just one of those people who get off on sitting on a fence.
Oh, and sorry to scare the pony, Jen. My pony wants to run today. Run far and free… far and free from this crap that makes its magical coat so shiny….
With regard to the VP pick, am I the only one who wants to see Obama pick Kathleen Sebelius? A female Democrat from freaking Kansas seems like a perfect match for the MUP. Plus there is that whole thing about wiping away 1.1 Billion in debt without raising taxes.
As for Hillary, I think she has to pick Obama, but I don’t think she will.
Cyrus wrote: “Really? “Destroy those in her way”… in a campaign.”
The problem is that those she is attacking are people like, say, Washington State democrats.
You know, all those states that “don’t count” because they didn’t vote for her.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
This, I think, is a problematic assumption.
For example, I’m “here”, and I’m a complete idiot.
I’m voting for Obama only because my
dealercommunity organizer got me hooked onup with some Pony Dust.
Also, according to some people here, I don’t dislike Hillary, because I don’t use sexist terms to describe her.
So, there you have it. You can’t make assumptions when there are morons in your midst.
Bob In Pacifica
There are reasons to not name political enemies your VP. It protects you.
Bush II’s VP is so evil that he’d have to be taken out beforehand. That makes any legal or extralegal coup that much more difficult. What would have been gained by taking out Bush I? A dumber version of Bush I? Some claim that Bush had already taken over from Reagan after the son of that family friend popped Reagan in the armpit early on. Nixon had Agnew as insurance but he was replaced with CIA asset Ford before they took him down. And in the moments between the throat shot and the head shot I’m sure JFK felt some regret for having a Texan with oil connections as his VP.
I made sure to vote early this morning (Obama) in the off-chance that I would be disgusted with the Rockets-Heat game on TNT, switch over to the debate, and catch a snippet of something in Spanish that subliminally (insofar as I don’t speak Spanish) changes my mind.
Hey, Clinton picked up Al Gore when he was only sitting on one delegate vote. I wouldn’t put it past him to pick Richardson. But my money is on Katherine Sebilius or Jim Webb. Barack needs someone who the Republicans view as a “moderate” to reach across the aisle with. A Red State governor or an ex-Reagen Republican would give him a leverage point he needs for the first four years.
Even if the Republican Party caves in ’08, there will still likely be enough hold-outs in the House and Senate to bottle things up. He’ll need someone who can pop the cork on guys like Specter and make the “moderate” Republican Senators break ranks.
Oh, sure, she’s campaigning badly, no argument there. I’m just saying that it might not be a great indicator of her governing style, or in general. Bush campaigned as a compassionate conservative, etc.
To be fair, Bush might be in my top 10. Some people are seriously calling him the worst president ever, right? There is a pretty long list of criticisms of him.
But number one? And his wife who, however you might feel about her activism or political involvement, has never officially held elected office higher than one term as a Senator, and was loathed long before that? Yeah, that’s deranged.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
annnnnd we knew what he meant by conservative… he meant “authoritarian”.
so we (or, at least, I) knew he was offering to be a “compassionate authoritarian”
annnnnd history tells us that authoritarianism enslaves all other purposes. So he was offering to be a faux-compassionate authoritarian.
I don’t see where he fooled us. I knew what I was voting against in 2000. (Although, I admit I could not have imagined he could be this abhorrent)
I agree. You get in the bed with Clintons and their goons, and you can’t shower that stink off. Keep ’em away!
The Clintons need to retire from the political scene. Hillary’s senate seat needs to be seriously challenged in 2013 .
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I think that’s a bit overkill. The Clintons are definitely scum. But we can hedge them scumbaggery by putting them in a pool of other politicians where the toxins are diluted.
To say that they’re refuse because they’re nasty is too much. They’re skilled politicians (except when they’re running for office or there’s a meanie on the playground).
Although, I’m a New Yorker, and I’m seriously NOT pleased that she skipped the FISA vote just because she wanted to run for President. She can’t campaign to save her life, and she’s wasting my time.
I don’t mind them at all. I’ve yet to see an undecided work him/herself into a screaming flailing tantrum.
How do you explain this guy?
Meh. She’s a classic policy wonk. I am not uberimpressed with wonks. I am not uberimpressed with valueslovers either. Or with war heroes, or with godly men or tough talkin mayors or any of that crap. None of that boilerplate campaign bullshit affects me.
I am interested in things like judgment and critical thinking and intellectual integrity. Clinton fails those tests for me. Obama doesn’t.
Gee, I dunno King of the Idiots. How did you explain away Mark Foley? Although I do find it hillarious that you equate a radio talk show host as equally representative of the Democratic party as an actual GOP congressman.
Anyway, what does Bernie Ward have to do with the Duke lacrosse case?
Hillary entered the race with a >45% negative rating and had no contingency plan to deal with a serious challenge that might take the race past February 5. We’ve had enough of this sort of blind arrogance these past few years, haven’t we?
How do I explain that guy?
As a red herring. The GOP’s frequent bimbella and bimbello eruptions, where the bimbelli were all minors that the GOP supporters had in their care, are the issue here.
But nice try. You only missed bringing in Nifong.
It’s the jackalope everyone is asking.
Paul still hasn’t addressed my concerns about the DALLAS TWO, whose penchant for thievery was foiled by domestic surveillance. The exact sort of domestic surveillance that Bush threatened to veto when he refused to reauthorize the PAA extension passed by Congress.
Why does Paul L’s Republican Party support stupid criminals? God only knows.
Yeah, I thought some of those skyscrapers in NY were looking shorter.
The Grand Panjandrum
Big Bill is a pretty darn fine diplomat, and has quite a bit of international cred. He might be a good choice, but he’s also my governor, and a pretty decent one. So hands OFF bitches! For the first time in my life I’ve really been proud of my state and you guys want to steel him away? Ha! Only if you allow him to periodically return to NM and pimp slap the entrenched Democrats in the state legislature. That’s non-negotiable!
But, I agree, he would be a good choice. And he would probably help the ticket carry NM which happens to be a swing state.
John, I have a question: back in the day when you were rationalizing deficit spending as fiscal responsibility and limited government, what did you really see when you looked across to the other side? I’m pretty sure you didn’t see us as “Party of Death” or such, but what’s your “on the outside, looking in” analysis of what’s going on with Dems?
I guess another way of asking this is: if Obama brought back the WPA, how out would you freak?
TalkLeft doesn’t disappoint.
They are truly grasping for straws…
The Other Steve
So that explains Paul L’s latest rambling.
That’s just bizarre. I read that quote, and never would I think to link it to Nazi’s.
Tom in Texas
I like the Sebilius choice, although frankly Kansas is too close to Illinois. What about Bob Graham? I know he lost in Florida, but is he poison there?
My favorite would still be Colin Powell. I doubt he’d do it, but that would reduce Republican base to only states bordering the Gulf Coast, and even then it wouldn’t shock me to see Texas’ or Florida’s moderate GOPers team up with a not insignificant Democratic base to utterly marginalize the racists not on respirators. Actually I’m not entirely sure that wouldn’t carry Mississippi or Alabama, where African Americans make up a larger percentage of the population than anywhere else in America. Louisiana/Arkansas maybe not, but I like them odds.
Digg showed this link from the big red satan about a person who researched the two candidates pretty extensively:
I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype
hey.. my link went away.. bah, here it is again:
Let’s hope this is better.
Obama / Sebilius or Obama / Richardson?
Call me crazy but I still like the idea of a democratic Dick Cheney: Obama / Nader.
Nader is an experienced, opinionated old guy who, once elected VP, would (probably?) not have further future presidential ambitions and hence could be the parallel-universe-opposite of Cheney as a force for good.
Barack and Ralph: healing the nation. (or not?)
Great reference to the Cuban Missile crisis. For me the choice of Obama over Clinton is simple. Her campaign shows time and again that she lacks nimble political instincts. Bobby Kennedy was one of the architects of his brother’s Vietnam policies, and yet he had the political and moral courage to admit that he had been wrong. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, continues to pointlessly waffle over her war vote, hurting herself and giving her opponents a stick to beat her with.
Her claim to great experience, weak to begin with, is an increasingly hollow claim. Thrity five years in some kind of nebulous on-the-job training program does not magically grant her the savvy of a governor or a president, let alone her husband’s outstanding political instincts. And it’s not a gender thing, it is the difference between the skills of an executive and an adviser.
While I would grudgingly vote for her should she become the nominee, Obama’s ability to attract a range of people (as opposed to loyal acolytes and handlers) and his track record as a state legislator and senator makes me think he would be a better president than would Senator Clinton.
As an aside, during one of the January debates, Senator Clinton demonstrated an admirable knowledge of the situation in Pakistan. But when she tried to demonstrate superior judgment than Obama by suggesting that she would persuade Pakistan to put their nuclear weapons under UN control, I knew that I was dealing with someone who didn’t understand much about other nations and their sense of their own self-interest. Here she was sounding more like George (“I looked him in the eyes and saw his soul”) Bush than someone who really would be “ready” from Day One.
I absolutely agree with you here. But this does not in itself qualify her to be president. There ain’t no sympathy votes in presidential elections.
She is a hard worker, but as noted, I don’t see a particularly superior grasp of every issue, or, more critically, an ability to craft or execute policy. There is more to being president than knowledge or the committment to hard work. I note here also that even though Bill Clinton was loved by world leaders, and can talk about foreign policy all day, he was sometimes weak on choosing the correct course of action. He and his wife appear to be similar in this respect.
Johnson was a skilled negotiator and jaw-boner. He had to work with Democrats and moderate Republicans to get the Civil Rights Act passed. But he was not the original or single source of the ideas or the legislation that formed these laws. Senator Clinton sometimes appears to have this notion of an imperial presidency: not only will she get things done, she will be the well-spring of all policy and ideas. But that is not how things best work.
zzyxx, or xxyzz, I forgot, sorry:
“I’m half tempted to say that in 2012, the primary order should be completely random, the system for each state should be random, and candidates are told about them a week in advance.”
I don’t like it because that rewards name recognition. If that were the system this time then HRC and Guiliani would already be our nominees.
Also, if HRC is such a hard worker, then why didn’t she read the Iraq NIE? My cynical answer – she didn’t need to read it to know that the war was very popular at that time.
Also – if you work really hard and make bad decisions, then what’s the point?