Here is my deep post-debate analysis:
Anyone who votes Republican in 2008 needs their head examined. Seriously, Obama and Clinton are so head and shoulders above the GOP field, the Dems should walk away with it. Unfortunately, I can still see McCain winning it all.
Having said that, I score the debate for Obama. One of the things I like about him is that when asked a question, there isn’t an instant response spit out. He pauses, he starts to respond, and you can tell he is thinking, and not merely reciting. The highlight for the night was when he called the bullshit fearmongering about immigration what it is- scapegoating. That was refreshingly honest.
There are so few issues that the two differ, but when they do, I tend to agree with Obama. Additionally, he was right about the Iraq war, and it drives me insane that Hillary simply can not admit she was wrong. well, actually, pretty much everything about Hillary drives me insane, although I try to keep that under control.
The most devastating question of the night came from the voter who had never been able to vote in an election without a Bush or a Clinton on the ticker (same for me, too). It is time for some new blood.
Jen
These were a couple of articles that I thought, in different ways, made the case for Obama over Hillary in a convincing way. In the Nation, you have to get past the cringe-inducing references to “imperialism” and “oppression” (that’s just how they roll over there at the Nation), but it’s still pretty good. (Warning: it does contain “transcend”.) A fascinating tidbit from Buchanan and Nixon near the end that I hadn’t heard before.
And Harold Meyerson has a great analogy from the Old Testament…time to get out of the desert.
Zifnab
I think Obama would have done better if he’d harped less on making the right decision once back in ’02 and harped more about making the right decision again come ’09 – by deciding NOT to invade Iran or Syria or Pakistan or Beirut or Chile or the Ukraine or whatever the next Republican National Enemy Flavor of the Month will be.
I actually liked Clinton’s retort to that. “A Clinton cleaned up after the last Bush, it might take another to clean up after this one.” Meh, I can live with Bush / Clinton / Bush / Clinton better than I can live with Republican / Democrat / Republican / Republican.
Ned Raggett
You know, I hadn’t thought about that last point before, but I just realized it’s the same for me as well! Crazy.
Ned Raggett
(Referring to John’s last point.)
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Spot on.
Jen
“A Clinton cleaned up after the last Bush, it might take another to clean up after this one.”
I’ve heard her say that 4000 times. Get back on the pony!
Nah, I take your point. All that B/C/B/C/B stuff makes me thing, well, Bush was really the worst of that combination. I mean, anyone named Bush isn’t going to break out of the fourth tier of R nominees again until, well, until everyone who remembers GWB has been dead for forty years.
The husband wants a compromise….let us have Obama this time, and we promise we’ll consider Chelsea down the road.
Walker
I have wondered about Obama given his weaker health care plan, and the fact that he is clearly influenced by big Pharma. We need to do something about health care in this country if we want to compete globally.
But last night, Hillary confirmed exactly what I have feared about her presidency: she thinks that Bill’s approach to the economy is what is going to get us out of our current economic mess. She said that she proposed freezing mortgage rates for five years. Holy crap! That’s not just a bad idea, that’s disastrous. Considering what is happening in the financial sector right now, that is like GWB disastrous.
Asset bubbles are over. Stop trying to support them Hillary.
Jon H
Zifnab wrote: “I actually liked Clinton’s retort to that. “A Clinton cleaned up after the last Bush, it might take another to clean up after this one.” ”
That would work better if Clinton hadn’t arguably helped set the stage for this Bush.
Neal
The B/C/B/C idea makes me nauseous. I just can’t understand how anyone can be okay with that. It repulses me.
I want my republic back. I’m tired of the War of the Roses.
There are 300 million people in this country. The Bushes and Clintons have both been bad in my opinion (for very different reasons but bad nonetheless) and I can’t understand why we would keep it up.
That theme has colored my view of this election from the start, regardless of all the daily drama on the campaign trail. That may not be fair but I think it’s valid.
ThymeZone
One, I agree with John, it’s obvious that the Dem field is the class of the contest, and that the GOP field looks and sounds like something from Saturday Night Live.
Two, Jen’s suggestion about Chelsea is a good one. She is the class of the Clinton family. She has both her parents’ smarts and poise in front of a crowd. If she goes into politics, I wouldn’t want to be running against her.
Im out here in AZ watching a barrage of campaign commercials, and …. Clinton has the best lineup of political tv spots I have ever seen. They are just devastatingly good. I am voting for Obama, so this is not fan gush. I fear that her money and organization are going to be too much to overcome.
I am seriously hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket. I don’t think that ticket can be beaten, even with her negatives, which are considerable once we get past the convention.
p.lukasiak
The most devastating question of the night came from the voter who had never been able to vote in an election without a Bush or a Clinton on the ticker (same for me, too). It is time for some new blood.
with all due respect, the DUMBEST reason to vote for Obama is the fact that Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton.
Obama won the debate if you were thinking with your heart; Hillary won if you were thinking with your brain. Obama stops and thinks in order to figure out what you want to hear; Hillary just answers the questions.
I have the feeling that this debate was aimed at a audience of one — John Edwards. I suspect that Edwards made it clear to both Obama and Clinton that the attacks had to stop, and that he would be watching this debate and if there were attacks, rather than substantive discussion of issues, he’d endorse the other candidate, period. (This explains why Hillary was not able to respond effectively on Iraq — she couldn’t point out that after the invasion occurred, and it was looking like it might work, Obama significantly moderated his position.)
Watching the debate from the Edwards perspective, you’d have to give it to Hillary. Their health care proposals are much closer than Edwards is to Obama’s, and Obama’s use of demagoguery on the issue would have bothered Edwards. (And Edwards is enough of a realist to understand that Obama’s “we’ll broadcast everything on C-Span” response to Hillary pointing out the enormouse pressures any health care proposal was pure BS.)
And lets not forget that Edwards also voted for the AUMF, and understands the pressures that Senators were under at that time. While Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s Iraq record may have resonated with a lot of people, John Edwards would not have been one of them.
Ultimately, Edwards would have concluded that Clinton was the realist in this debate — the candidate who is most ready to confront the hard choices. Obama might try to accomplish more, but Clinton will achieve more even if she doesn’t try to accomplish as much.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
You mean, you can see him winning the first year in office and the heart-attack that follows, and his veep wins the next 3 years, right?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Extra perspective. I lurv doing that.
Jon H
“One, I agree with John, it’s obvious that the Dem field is the class of the contest, and that the GOP field looks and sounds like something from Saturday Night Live.”
I would love it if Ron Paul took a question from Chris Matthews in a debate and responded “The question is moot.” and then went on to talk some sense (not so much the gold standard stuff.)
Jon H
“Ultimately, Edwards would have concluded that Clinton was the realist in this debate—the candidate who is most ready to confront the hard choices.”
Oh please. If elected Clinton will be confronting the hard choice of whether to pursue victory ponies in Iran or Syria.
Cyrus
I’m 25. Many friends and relatives around my age are married or have children or are finished or close to finished with post-graduate degrees. Many have advanced past McJobs and are well into careers. Vote in a presidential election without Bush or Clinton? There has been either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since before I was born.
In the coming election, people born after the Berlin Wall fell will be old enough to vote. Whenever I read a conservative complaining about communism or socialism or whatever, it cheers me up to think just how objectively dumb they’re being.
Jen
Well, Edwards was at the Carolina game during the debate. He seemed quite contented to be there. I think he was probably concluding, “Damn, Ty Lawson is fast.”
p.lukasiak
Oh please. If elected Clinton will be confronting the hard choice of whether to pursue victory ponies in Iran or Syria.
sheer nonsense.
From day one after the election, both Obama and Hillary will be running for re-election. Hillary will follow public opinion as it stands (i.e. get US troops out of Iraq, and don’t look back) while Obama will try to rule by consensus — in other words, Obama is far more likely to be the guy who pursues a more agressive course toward Syria and Iran because he want everyone to be happy — and that means compromising with AIPAC, the Christian Supremacists, and the GOP hegemonists.
Jake
It is a dead cert if Clinton is the Dem. candidate. You’ll have a combination of Republicans rising from comas to vote against her and just enough Democrats who don’t want a “dynasty” staying away from the polls. With Obama it could go either way it will be photo-finish close.
cmoreNC
Query: How many people actually WATCHED the democratic debate instead of watching the season-opening “Lost” episode? OK, most of us politicos did watch the debate live, dvr-ing the “Lost” episode for later viewing.
Unfortunately, the “Lost” schtick was a two-nighter and also overlapped the Republican debate on Wedesday night in many time zones. Unfortunately, because I think most people who are not already going to vote Republican no-matter-what who watched both nights (the Repub and then the Dem debate, instead of “Lost”) would have been far more impressed with the dems. The republicans made a mistake IMHO holding their debate in the Reagan shrine – their candidates spent far too much time looking backward kissing Reagan’s dead ass. There’s NO ONE on their side who looks like Reagan Redeaux, even to a Republican, and few voters outside hopelessly partisan Republicans who are nostalgic about the recent Republican past.
Jon H
“Obama is far more likely to be the guy who pursues a more agressive course toward Syria and Iran because he want everyone to be happy”
Right… And Clinton has a jones to show how tough she is, and how better to do that than by killing some more brown people?
She’s already on record on taking a belligerent stance towards Iran.
Jen
Well, it’s only 11:00, but so far that’s the most inane thing I’ve read today.
ThymeZone
Well, let’s start the prediction sweepstakes. I’ll put a stake in the ground here that without knowing who the nominees are, the Dem wins the general election by 5+ points. If it’s a Clinton-Obama ticket, it could go 10+ points, a Goldwater-class butt whipping.
Neither McCain nor Romney can fire up a following. Both Obama and Clinton can. The country is sick to death of the Republicans. They suck, and most people know it. Even most Republicans know it.
Another 10-20 seats in the House are going to be ours. The Senate majority widens.
Barring the unforseen, 2008 should be the final, inglorious collapse of the GOP’s run.
Have you guys all seen the Clinton tv commercials?
I wouldn’t want to be running against her, and keep in mind, she drives me up the frigging wall.
Blue Jean
Hello? The Bushes have been a wealthy, powerful family for nearly a century. They’ve had senators, governors, and Presidents. It’s been 36 years (more than most of the posters here have been alive) since the GOP had a Presidential ticket without a Bush or Dole on it.
Clinton was the son of a widowed nurse. He grew up in a blue collar family. Hillary was middle class. Neither of them have had any politicians in their family (unless you count their spouses). If you wanted to find any powerful people in Clinton’s family, you’d have to go back to Henry III (like one geneologist did).
Bill Clinton had eight years between 12 years of Poppy and 8 years of Shrub. If there’s a “Clinton/Bush” dynasty, the Bushes have had 3/5th of it.
There’s a lot of good reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton, but let’s not blame her for the Bushogarchy.
jnfr
I loved the debate. It made me really happy for my party that we have such good, strong candidates in the race. I’ll have no problem voting for either one of them.
Fausto Carmona (fmr. Doug H.)
Which is why Obama said he would set a date to get us out of Iraq, while Clinton sounded like she was stocking up on Friedman Units.
ThymeZone
Obama news conference in a few mins. Anybody know what is up?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Ted Kennedy veep announcement, my guess. He’s on a Kennedy kick lately >:3
Jen
I’m just going to flog this one more time, since it’s relevant to the “dynasty” debate. The analogy is that Dems have been in the desert for 40 years. The Clinton years were ones of eking out some territory through trench warfare, fighting defense and triangulating. And we had to do it that way. There wasn’t any other way. And mad props to Bill Clinton for that. But this year, this is our chance to break out of that mold, and that pattern of fighting, and actually be on top for a while.
So, yes, the Bush and Clinton “dynasties” aren’t equivalent. The fact that someone named Clinton can be a front-runner is clearly more than will ever be said again about someone named Bush.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t time for a new way.
And seriously, I will consider Chelsea someday.
Mary
TZ, where did you hear about the press conference? I just turned on CNN and they’re covering a suicide bombing in Baghdad (50+ killed by disabled women — plural! — with bombs strapped to them. Jesus Christ almighty.)
Let’s see if a Richardson endorsement (the most likely scenario) does anything for Obama.
jnfr
TZ, CNN seems to think it’s just a press avail, ask a few questions kind of thing.
ThymeZone
I’ve been in the desert for most of 61 years.
It hasn’t hurt me, as near as
It hasn’t hurt me, as near as
It hasn’t hurt me, as near as
It hasn’t hurt me, as near as
It hasn’t hurt me, as near as
It hasn’t hurt me, as near as
It hasn’t hurt me, as near as
It hasn’t hurt me, as near as
ThymeZone
MSNBC is billboarding the Obama presser.
Dreggas
The first thing Hillary learned about doing healthcare is you first had to kiss the ring of the insurance industry. She’s kissed them this time, I wouldn’t say Obama is in too tight with big pharma.
Jen
On the health care thing, FWIW.
I got no real strong opinions about this, I just know that the system is screwed 8 ways from Sunday and the Republicans think there is nothing, including cancer, that can’t be cured with more free market.
ThymeZone
Obama is making a statement about the economic crisis.
MSNBC is carrying it live.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
No, Dems did not. That concept is one of the reasons I’m not a Democrat right now. Backbone is important in gauging your friends and your supporters. If all you do is triangulate, then I’m dealing with a calculator, not a representative organization.
Please tell me that was a joke. PLEASE?!
Hillary — even — gets ZERO credit for being the wife of Bill Clinton, and Chelsea gets equally as much for being the daughter. ZERO!! Why doesn’t anyone UNDERSTAND this?? Both Hillary and Chelsea have to make their own way in life!
You don’t come to me and plead “(I banged / I’m the daughter of) this guy you liked. Please give me job. No, I mean a FUN job. That pays really well and has a lot of power”. How freaking inappropriate!!
Hillary has happened to prove her capability as a Senator, and I’m happy to put her back in Congress. But had I been a New Yorker on her first election, I would’ve told her to go fuck herself. How disgusting. “I was married to this guy. Make me a Senator.” The only appropriate response to that: Bite me.
ThymeZone
Nice of at least one cable outlet to take time out from its blather about the Natalee Holloway case.
jenniebee
Funny about that B/C/B/C thing… nobody was worried about family succession back when GWB was running. Hell, it was pushed as an asset. He’d hit the ground running, and if he didn’t know what to do, never you fear, Daddy’s advisors would be on the case. And even more of Poppy’s kids and grandkids were trotted out as future successors, just in case anybody was worried that term limits were going to prevent us from having as many Bush presidents as we could ever, ever want.
Now, suddenly it’s an issue and a threat to the Republic because it’s Hillary (of course, this isn’t just a party thing or a personality thing, it’s a principle. I’m sure the same sort of stir was made when Cato the younger decided to run for Senate. Wait… no there wasn’t…) Puh-leeze. The mistake we made with GWB was that he was judged not on his own merits (there aren’t many) but on the merits of his family. Let Hillary stand or fall on her own merits; in this country, it’s the individual’s worth that’s supposed to count, not their family connections.
Wilfred
This, maybe?
The time is right; could send him through I hope
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
I’ll take it one further. What lukasiak said was positively retarded.
Jen
Settle down, Caidence, this is pretty peripheral to what we’re talking about, but since I don’t let anything go…. I believe it is Conventional Wisdom, it is even acknowledged in that Nation opinion piece I linked, that popular support just hasn’t been terribly liberal:
Hence the Third Way. You think it was easy to be a progressive in Arkansas in the ’80s? Anyway, we can agree to disagree there. I think most people would agree that this is a different time, with a different feel, and a new window to change politics.
And if you’ll see my earlier post, you’ll see the joke about Chelsea. But of course if she were to ever run I would consider her, the same as I’d consider anybody. There’s only one surname that will be forever ruled out on my mental list of potential presidents.
Scotty
They had that one stored up since 2000.
—————————————
Most of the debate seemed even between the two. The glaring difference, of course, is the Iraq vote from Clinton. Will it come down to the fact that she just won’t admit a mistake that might swing close primary states to Obama by a few percentage points?
Dreggas
Well all those assurances were wrong about GWB now weren’t they? Here Hillary is trying to run on what THEY (her and bill) did in the white house for 8 years and funny thing is I don’t recall HER being the president. If she stood on her own record there wouldn’t be shit to stand on and the 35 years of experience bullshit would be seen for what it is. She is running on her name. Her whole schtick about no one thinking bush would use a freaking war resolution to go to war was just about as believable as Condi saying no one could have predicted that terrorists would use planes as missiles.
canuckistani
I agree with Jenniebee.. I’ll listen to people complain about the dynasty thing *if* they complained when GWB was being annointed and Jeb was being groomed for the next top slot. If the dynasty thing only became a problem this cycle, I don’t really want to hear it.
AkaDad
My favorite line was, “I don’t want to just end the war, I want to end the mindset that got us there in the first place.”
He “gets it.”
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I’ll take it one further. What lukasiak said was irrationally pro-Hillary.
I’m getting so sick of the pro-Hillary crowd not having anything to show for their candidate.
We’ve got two guys, no displayed skill between them. One guy is nice, one is abrasive, and people are mad we’re voting for the nice guy. Like it’s a damn mystery.
So now my voting guide has become wikipedia. Go figure.
Wilfred
I think he does, too. That’s why he’s got my vote. But I would love to see that mindset really exposed and confronted. I believe Obama is willing to do that.
John S.
Same here, John.
I’m 31 and have seen enough of these two families to last me a lifetime.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
No. Not when the best candidate I can find is a greenhorn, and the best reason to vote for him is because he smiles real purdy. How the hell is it that nobody can beat that, even after all the shouting about why Hillary is better?
I literally hate people that are all talk and no substance.
I’m not angered by what you posted, just by the implications it brought up.
Good for you; I like that.
I’ve been trying to train people on this… maybe I see this because I’m young and a kid of the internet generation… but there is no such thing as a definite mandate.
You operate the media by sticking your hands in an pulling the levers! And the Republican party has been demonstrating this to you for years now!
Democrats think that if a 28 year old farm punk in N. Dakota thinks that the Death Tax is really bad for people like him, it’s their job to convince — methodically — this person to change his mind.
It’s not.
It’s your job TO TELL HIM IT’S NOT GOOD FOR HIM. That’s the “Leadership” part of the equation. A Congressperson is in a position of power because someone needs to handle every aspect of the issues. If a farm boy knew how to run government, we’d be a democracy, not a republic.
Democrats think that if they win the logical argument, it will collapse the Republican’s bluff and win the day. That would be correct IF THE COUNTRY WERE PAYING ATTENTION TO LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. The country pays attention to economic arguments.
Farm boy: “Does this hurt my paycheck?” Republican: “Of Course it does! SPoooKY!!” Democrat: “Now, easy there, lets look at the tax code for a quick hour lecture…”
If you’ve been around, you might have noticed my attempts to bring logical arguments onto this site have been complete failures. I bring sources, I ask for theirs. They give none, I have to get sources for them. myiq last night told me to go read the Daily Howler, instead of giving me his argument.
I am obviously an idiot for using logic.
I did.
Then that’s later. Right now Chelsea is nobody, and she doesn’t even deserve the little press you just gave her. She’s as qualified for President as Brittany or whatever primitive failure is giving dope to their kids right now.
If it sounds like I’m insulted she was brought up, I was. She gets to be somebody because she was the kid of a President, like that means something. It doesn’t. I wish her the best, but I could care less about her oxygen consumption.
And the same goes for Hillary. She’s nobody. Like Obama.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Holy crap I feel so much better.
Now if only I could get that notice into the hands of all the democrats, we could actually have a sane election.
Jen
Whoa. Meds are your friend! I am your friend!
/backs away slowly
Doubting Thomas
As an Edwards supporter I agree with p.lukasiak. Hillary won this Edwards supporter mainly due to her healthcare answers.
But Obama for the first time let me know he’s more than just lofty rhetoric. He was able to wonk out with Hillary and I loved his remarks about making American’s trust their government again. He obviously was the winner in the war issue, but oddly I though Hillary came off better as to actually getting us out of the war.
Mixed bag. Hillary won me for now as her Health care is closest to Edwards, but Obama proved to me he more than an empty suit. All in all, we’re lucky. Either of these will make an excellent President.
TheFountainHead
As a 24 year old who can remember Bill Clinton’s inauguration vividly (my father made me watch it) and who was forced to live the entirety of his formative years under a Clinton or a Bush, and seeing how close those families really are at the end of the day, I think the dynasty argument does hold water. My birthday is November 7th, which means my 16th birthday was depressing and my 20th was even worse. Being able to celebrate my birthday this year without having to feel like I could look forward to more of the same for the next eight would literally change my life. Maybe that sounds overly-dramatic to some of you, and fair enough, but that’s how strongly I feel about the need for change, and the need to get away from the Clinton’s say-anything politics and the Bush’s “Father knows best.” governing.
This primary season has left me strung out. As the debate started last night I turned to my girlfriend and said, “Holy shit! I’m actually nervous! I’m stressed about this!” And well I should be. My future, and the future of so many others like me, literally hangs in the balance. So if the “Dynasty” question seems silly to you, try to imagine yourself graduating from college right now. Try to imagine yourself trying to start a family or buy a house. We all need new beginnings.
Jen
Do look at the link, really, Thomas. I dunno, might help.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I just need more pony tears.
/sits in lotus position
//repeats mantra
omm trancedentalism trancedentalism trancedentalismmm
omm trancedentalism trancedentalism trancedentalismmm
omm trancedentalism trancedentalism trancedentalismmm
Neal
Wrong Jenniebee. Most of us didn’t vote for Bush 2, remember? I, for one, thought it was stupid then.
It was ridiculous then because he was not the best candidate and only became the GOP establishment favorite because he is a Bush.
It’s ridiculous now because Hillary is not the best or most experienced candidate and is only in this position because of Bill’s last name. Sorry. That doesn’t make me sexist or anything of the sort. It’s simply the truth.
I want this country to move on from these baby boomer idiots. Sorry.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I feel that. I was 18 for 2000, 22 for 2004. My first two prez votes ever, both for the not-Bush didn’t work. I feel impotent :(
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
trancedentalism (n): The art of performing dental work in hypnogogic mental states.
/trancendentalism
//I’m a dummy.
Neal
Fountainhead gets it. Thank you sir. I’m 27, slightly older, but experiencing the same feelings. I love my country and I love American History. I feel I am stuck living in a bankrupt era. I hate it. This isn’t about the Bush or Clinton ambition, this is about ALL OF US. This is part of the story of our lives.
DougJ
Thanks you, John. Their grasp of policy is so much better than any of the Republicans, it’s kind of ludicrous. None of the Republicans has a real fiscal plan or a real health care plan.
What the hell happened to that party? It blows me away that we could have gone from Bush I to this.
It should also be said that Hillary and Obama are unusually bright and well-versed in policy matters.
But this isn’t the Patriots versus the Bills. This is the Patriots versus some Division III college squad.
TheFountainHead
I have to admit I have a similar resentment towards my father’s generation, as I’ve stated in other threads before, and been rebuffed for it. Maybe it’s unfair to place an culpability at feet of the world’s largest generation, especially as someone without the unique perspective of being a member, but I cannot let go of the fact that they have enjoyed, till now at least, some of the most economically successful years of this country’s history during a time when the vast majority of them stood to benefit from that the most. They were uniquely positioned in history to foresee the issues we would face next (which they did) and do something preventative about them (which they didn’t) and now we are yet again facing an election that is skewed to those of that generation, and I am afraid they are going to do as they always have, looked to the past and ignored the future.
jcricket
Whatever. John’s point stands, about how the entire Democratic field is head-and-shoulders above the Republicans. Democrats would be good seize on it, whatever the outcome is.
Show some actual unity. And as someone else pointed out upthread, let’s start leading.
Don’t argue the minutia of why the estate tax is necessary, or why you can’t pay for spending with tax cuts. Just raise taxes on the top 1% and make the estate tax permanent with some reasonable level of exemption indexed to inflation. Balance the budget. Tell people Republicans are full of crap and stand for nothing but wishful thinking.
Claim the mantle of the “adult” party, because we actually are.
Neal
(Clap Clap Clap).
The boomers are so incredibly self-absorbed. The predicament they have left for my future kids and my kids’ kids is appalling. All for ideology/ambition/greed. Our grandparents were “The greatest generation”. I don’t know what to call what came after.
They have squandered everything our grandparents generation gave them…and we will pay the price.
jcricket
Two things:
1) Discredited economic theories. If you continue to push the idea that tax cuts are the “best thing ever” ™ but you can’t deal with the fact that the American public won’t stand for spending cuts (They won’t. Despite claims otherwise, the vast majority of the money goes for stuff people want/need) you end up in a position of economic stupidity every time. Is it any wonder economic reality has a “liberal” bias given the way Republicans approach economic theory?
2) Tying their entire “wagon” to wedge politics.
Every party is dependent on its constituent interests. But if you let one of those sets of interests completely dominate your agenda, and those interests run counter to everyone else’s wishes, you’re going to pay for it. Republicans can’t just be anti-abortion now, but also have to be anti-birth-control, anti-immigration, anti-evolution/science. That’s pretty much only gonna get you one segment of vote and alienate the others.
Basically the above 2 pushes out everyone fiscally sane and everyone who’s not a fire-breathing-evangelical. I don’t just mean the voters, but potential political candidates. If you’re a 20-something economist, scientist, medical professional, professor, etc. are you gonna become a Republican? The best outcome from all this (IMHO), is that Republicans are destroying their “farm” system/candidate pipeline. That’s gonna hurt for more than this election.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
omg someone paid attention to my big argument about proactive leadership. thank god thank god.
now, if I can get the rest of the middle-aged left-centrists, then we can start steering this country towards actual conservative, patient, humane progress.
[/hyperventilating]
Alan
It seems Obama is more attuned to possible unintended consequences with policy. To me this shines through with his five percent policy differences he has with Hillary.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Your two things follow the one big thing:
(Right-wing) Academics got control.
Whenever academics of any color or stripe come out of their seclusion and get power, they set the engines to overdrive and take the country off a cliff.
Academics, to be successful, need to be in controlled environments, with limited experience with the real world. Government is the complete opposite of that.
But instead, in walks Kristol: “According to my theories, if we remove Saddam, then Iraq will rebuild itself in a year’s time and the citizenry will be happy! Theories are all you need!”
There’s a reason why after every violent revolution, the academics are purged. This is it. They do the most damage when given power.
mrmobi
I’m with you, TZ. I was seriously impressed with both Clinton and Obama last night. Isn’t it refreshing to hear an actual discussion of policy in a political debate? Is that what a debate is supposed to be like?
I watched most of ir last night, and then the MSNBC/Olbermann recap afterwards. I really like these two candidates. It’s been a long time since I’ve been able to say that.
Dreggas
HA! I was called sexist for saying I opposed the dynasty especially in this case because it is husband and wife and both would be in the whitehouse. Someone actually asked, even after the two for 1 pitch in the 90’s, if I thought bill was going to be co-president. That’s like asking if the sun rises in the east.
Colin
On an earlier post: What’s wrong with listening with your heart? That’s where the hope is, or at least should be unless it all drained out of you.
Not to say Obama isn’t compelling headwise: as several interviewers have noticed, he really does seem in these situations to be trying to work out the right answer, and his caution on the uses of government, at home and abroad, is profoundly thoughtful.
But it’s silly to argue that this is zero-sum: more heart means less thinking, the mere fact that someone can inspire means they lack substance.
Oh, and if you were John Edwards, you just might have seen this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1
jcricket
Watch who you’re calling middle age! No, seriously, the idea that it’s all “U-S-A! U-S-A! We’re #1” and there’s no one out there doing anything better than us is the Republican frame. If we can lead America even 1/10th of the way towards Canada, Norway or France in terms of universal healthcare, economic safety net, family leave, public education funding we’ll be 100% better than the position we’re in now.
But moving down the field requires offense.
The old joke: “What’s the difference between theory and practice? In theory there is no difference.” Ba-dum-bump.
No, seriously. I understand the “ivory tower” argument, but it’s a lot harder for right-wing “academics” to ever produce anything coherent. Committing large numbers of logical fallacies, disdain for the scientific method, etc. certainly are even bigger problems than failure to account for real-world conditions.
MaryS-NJ
Some random comments…
I had a conversation with several friends back in the day. They were intelligent, well educated professionals but not political junkies like I am. I argued that Bush was trying to put one over on us. They believed him or at least didn’t see how anyone could afford to take the chance in the wake of 9-11.
Most of them see it differently now and realize what I was saying at the time is true. But a couple of them still say “well, but the intelligence at the time said…”
For people like that, I don’t think Hillary’s refusal to admit she was wrong will be that big a deal. Even smart people can give someone the benefit of the doubt who proves himself untrustworthy later. Plus, I’m cynical enough to understand the political climate in those days, made voting for it a political necessity, even for those who may have been skeptical, not just aspirants to the White House but to hold onto Senate seats.
Ariana Huffington made a point I agreed with last night. She spoke of idealists and pragmatists and that the idealists in Edwards’ camp would probably go for Obama, the pragmatists for Hillary.
I think both candidates have unique qualities to bring to a Presidency. Obama’s the big picture guy – looking to the future and a change in mindset, which is good and right for our party going forward. Hillary is the detail-oriented manager who wants to tackle problems in the here and now. That’s how I see them. We need BOTH.
Anyway, I’m an Edwards supporter who will vote for Hillary on Super Tuesday. I’m a pragmatist more than an idealist – at least in this moment. Someone cleverer than I once said: “Our country’s in a ditch. I want a work horse, not a show horse.” I mean no disrespect to Obama in saying that because his message is relevant to the direction of our party and our country, but I feel that Hillary will focus like a laser on those specific problems.
That being said, I will be happy with either candidate as a nominee or President.
Obama? Is 46, born in 1961. Technically, he’s a Boomer. I’m also 46 a bit younger than he is. I feel like I have a foot in 2 camps generationally speaking, in large part because I have a son and two stepsons ranging in age from 24 to 29 who are college graduates and struggling to pay their rent, their living expenses and their student loans.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I remember some of the political movements of that time, although too young to remember JFK’s assassination. The anti-war movement? Womens rights and civil rights? The Peace Corps?
Ambitious and greedy? I would argue not. The end result of some of those movements have paid benefits for people in our kids generation, things you can take for granted, like laws that protect women in the workforce from discrimination, etc.
I would argue that the ambition and greed came with Ronald Reagan’s movement. The loss of focus on “us” and the new focus on “what’s in it for me” was brought in by a bunch of “idealistic” many young conservatives, not the aging hippies of yore. A lot of these young conservatives were my (and Obama’s) age peers who faulted their parents for being wooly-headed liberals.
We have had to help pay our kids make their COBRA payments, living expenses and student loans while they decided whether to go to Grad School or move for better opportunities. The cost of living has increased and salaries and wages have not. I’m trying to understand how it’s “greedy” that we should invest so much in giving our kids the best opportunities they can have under the circumstances.
Digital Amish
Just scanning a couple of winger sites last night (Red State and RWNews, iirc) the opinion seemed to be that the debate was a snoozer because, well, instead of snipeing at each other Hillary and Barack talked about stuff.
ikl
This post was spot on. One of the nice things about Obama is that he seems unusually thoughtful for a politician and has a good balance of analytic sharpness and common sense.
But the big picture is that even HRC would be a huge improvement over any of the Republicans even if some things about her and her campaign are off-putting.
Neal
MaryS-NJ – Good post, and I mean no disrespect. I should qualify statements as opposed to being so general. There’s definitely a subset that deserves the majority of the blame and advances have been made in many areas…otherwise Obama and Hillary wouldn’t even have a chance to run.
Obama is technically a boomer, true, but he was too young to be part of the freelove/vietnam era…so maybe in my mind, as a student of history, he missed some of the idealogical clashes associated with that. It seems a lot of the battles of the 90s and now reflect divisions from that era. I can’t claim to know for sure, and it obviously wasn’t my battle, but it’s hard to not feel some disdain for where our world has gone since. I get sick of listening to the previous generation bicker.
On top of this, I’m not near as liberal/progressive as some here on that board so maybe some of those advances that would be favored by some, I don’t look at as being the best. Some I do, some I don’t. I try to be openminded though.
There has been sacrifice from the everyday citizen, that is always the case in every generation, my anger is more directed at decisions made by those in charge. The trade deals, the wars, those sorts of things. Our best interests – all of ours – have not been kept in mind…and yes, the incompetence by Clinton and Bush, our boomer presidents, has amazed me.
Yes, I just said Clinton was incompetent. Not in the Bush sense, mind you.
heywood jablomy
I really think the MSM and even some of us in the snarkosphere are behind the public again on the Obama-Hillary debate. I think a lot of Americans looked at that and saw a very reassuring scene — Dems getting along, poised and ready to take the WH as a ticket. Obama would have to be the junior member but frankly he is really very inexperienced. When Wolf tried to pick fights the crowd sneered. Stories today that make fun of the civility (see A. Stanley in NYT, et a.l) are missing the mark. The public hungers for unity. Let the Repubs do the hot war shuffle – the Dems have to be the cavalry come fall.
Hypatia
Obama can give a speech much better than the hopelessly wooden Clinton, but I suspect that, given his generally poor performances in the debates (last night was his best showing by far) he ponders his responses a bit because he just isn’t that fast on his feet in the give and take of a debate.
Dreggas
No open thread but the LA Times endorsed Obama.
Beej
Neal and MaryS-NJ:
I am old enough to remember the JFK assassination. I’m old enough to have voted in the Nixon-Humphrey contest in 1968, and I sat through nearly every minute of the House Judiciary Committee deliberations that produced the bill of impeachment against Nixon. I don’t really give a good goddamn whether Clinton or Obama wins the Dem nomination for President. Either will be a 1000% improvement over the criminal moron who now occupies the office. Richard Nixon was a choirboy compared to this *&**^$%^**. What I do give a damn about is restoring the integrity, moral authority, and foundation of this country. Whichever of the Dem candidates can convince me they will do the best job of that has my vote.