Primaries

Remove all ads!

Brilliant move from Hillary. Showing yourself on the brink of tears before the primary that could effectively end your campaign right there. That stirred the woman voters it seems.

Personally I wouldn't want a president that breaks down in tears every time a setback occurs.

I was curious who I would vote for if I was an american so I took election test type of thing. I agree most with Obama, but curiously also with a large part with McCain. Why do the candidates have to be either way to left or way to the right?

 

Well, they aren't the sole source of power - we do have a Congress. IMO, despite the current administration, the most power still lies in Congress. However, there is no denying that the single most powerful individual is the president.

The advisors you refer to are called the President's Cabinet. The problem is that individual members of the Cabinet can and often do give the President conflicting advice, so no, the President doesn't have to follow what the Cabinet says. Further, the President picks his Cabinet, and can replace any of the members at will, so it is unlikely that you would get a Cabinet member openly defying the President for very long.

The two you list (McCain and Obama) are moderates. So they are not way to the left or right. In fact, most politicians are not way to the left or right. About the most extreme would be Kucinich (who has no chance) and Ron Paul (who has a very slim chance). If there is a overall trend, I would say that the US as a whole has moved to the right in recent years, so that someone who would have been considered a moderate 10 or 15 years ago, is now considered to be on the left.

EDIT: One more thing - while I cannot deny that Hillary received more votes, did she really win? According to MSNBC, the vote totals were so close that both she and Obama will each receive 9 of New Hampshire's 22 delegates (with Edwards getting the other 4).

 

The difference was that Bill Clinton was upfront in NH. He was out making points on where Obama really was on the issues. He made the interesting point that if America wants change it's hightime to elect a woman. It's only fair considering how the race card has been played by Obama and his Oprah Windfry followers. You guys can say what you want, but IMO, Hillary just took a page out of Bill's book and it made a big difference. She may just be the "Comeback Kid II." Maybe.

 

I think you are being incredibly unfair, here. While I disagree with Obama's decision to renew the patriot act, I feel compelled to point out that all of the good things found in the patriot act would be thrown out if we didn't renew it. Remember, not only does Congress lack the power to override a presidential veto, but the Senate needs 60 votes to do anything. There is simply no way Congress could pass a revision under this political climate. Sometimes a bad bill is better than no bill.

Regarding Iraq war funding, leaving our soldiers unfunded is simply not an option. If congress ever cut funding for the troops, you can bet your balls that we'd have a Republican congress faster than you can say "defeatocrat".

 

Drew - Well, yes. The more things "change," the more they seem to stay the same.

 

How much did he raise taxes and hen, though? I think I remember something about 1996-7 raise, but I was barely becoming aware of the politics in my own country at that point. I remember that G.H. Bush famously increased taxes, OTOH. Was his raise more or less pronounced as Clinton's?

My impressions of New Hampshire were, on the whole, favourable. Just as Iowa might have (should have) served as a kick in the rear for Clinton to stop being so high-and-mighty and get her act together, so NH might give Obama a hint that he isn't the party candidate just yet. The more interesting a race is, imo, the better it can serve to mobilize more of the potential voters, and both parties - heck, the country itself - can use this. Edwards and the others don't seem very likely - I'd have said not likely at all, but after McCain's win on the Republican side it might not be wise to make such statements. A pity, as I like Edwards' image and what I know of his policies.

I suppose I understand what's happening on the Republican side even less than what's happening on the Democratic one. I didn't expect McCain to do so well, really, but I suppose a) I've been too dismissive of him after a few gaffes and b) the relative calm in Iraq (attributed to the Bush-advocated buildup that he supports) is good wind for his sails. I find it sweetly ironic that Giulianni, who afaik had the "heir apparent" status that Hillary once "enjoyed" among Democrats, is doing so poorly. He can have some okay policies, but he himself rubs me in the wrong way, especially for overhyping 9/11 as he does afaik. It's like the opposite of Huckabee or Paul: I don't like their policies much, but I think that they could do a good job enacting them. Then again, I can't count him out yet either. This campaign is getting getting interesting. Anyone wants some popcorn?

Edit: the Clinton picture here is pure LOL material

 

Well, it wasn't that Bush I's tax increase was great, it was because he famously said during the campaign, "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES", and then he created a new tax once elected.

Giuliani's campaign did not plan to win any of the early primaries. His strategy was to concentrate on the largest states, and win the nomination by winning those states. The problem with that, obviously, is that by not campaigning in the early primaries you run the risk of becoming irrelevant by the time the first "big state" primary occurs, which is Florida, later this month.

 

Bill Clinton CUT taxes in 1997. The tax cut also included his popular college tuition tax credits. Here's some info that may help you:

If you are interested, you can read more: http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html

 

I really don't see how Obama has played the race card thus far. I mean, other than being Black. Part of why I like him so much is because he steers away from the Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton route of race-baiting every other word. But maybe I'm missing something. Can you elaborate?

 

Oh, no doubt about that, DR. And for that reason I think that's why many of those whom you mention are still supporting Hillary. But Oprah has put a lot of her credibility on the line with this move. I read (but I can't remember where) that she was courting other black celebraties to support Obama as well. There's no doubt, at least with a some of us, that Oprah is playing the race card on this one, regarding the notion of "change" as representing the first serious black candidate for prez (and no doubt, that does represent a serious change in the status quo). Yet, as someone who has made much of her fortune on being upfront on women's issues, Oprah is running the risk of losing a large part of her own base (middle-class, middle-aged white women), many of whom feel betrayed by Winfrey's move into politics in this manner. They have waited a long time to see a woman as a serious cadidate for prez. And to be honest, and as much as I am supporting Edwards, I agree with them.

I would just love to see those anti-woman, sexist, world leaders, (from places, like a few of those in the ME, as just one example) dealing with a tuff woman, like Hillary. Nevertherless, I'm still hopeful that Edwards will pull one out, maybe SC. He is the only one, IMO, who is willing to take us back to where we were before 2000 came along and destroyed much of what was good and decent about America, at least IMO. I know that there are some who will not agree with that assessment of our current state of affairs, but that's my take.

 

I'm of two minds with this statement of yours. While convinced that John Edwards is the candidate most likely to return our political compass back to a state of relative equilibrium, I'm not convinced that Barack Obama would not. When looking at their policy choices (health care), the impression I get is that John Edwards is presenting what, ideologically speaking, he would like to do. To contrast, I believe Obama is presenting us with what he thinks is actually possible. I, too, prefer John Edwards over the rest of the field, but some of the things he's suggesting -like stripping Congress of their medical benefits unless they pass his healthcare reform- simply aren't possible.

 

@ The 'Dos,

Well, I guess you're seeing more there than I am - which is not to say I agree that what you're seeing is actually there substantively - and believe me, I'm looking pretty hard. I can't stand Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and if I'd gotten even a whiff of it from Obama up till now, I'd be an Edwards supporter like yourself (he's my number two, incidentally). Let's put it this way: that Obama even has Jesse Jackson Jr. on his STAFF gives me the willies. That's how much I can't stand race politics.

But I think you're being too cynical. I'm loathe to come to Oprah's defense, but she'd be taking just as big a risk if she'd have backed Hillary, too. Now she's being called anti-feminist by Clinton supports. If she'd backed Hillary, she'd be called an Uncle (Aunt?) Tom by Obama supporters and the bulk of the American black community. Her credibility was on the line either way, since she's never publicly backed a candidate before, and this time she broke for her preferred candidate (though I admit, there was less risk for her in backing Obama). To encourage other black leaders to get into the political process because Obama is blazing the trail is only natural - and much needed, IMO. Doesn't make it race baiting. It's only race baiting if she's encouraging people to support Obama because he's black, and I see no evidence of that.

As for betraying her audience base - the middle-class, middle-aged white woman - I think you're being too cynical here, too. I'm sure she pissed off somewomen who were already backing Hillary, but there are plenty who aren't (or who could care less who Oprah supports - it's a free country). My mother - an Oprah fan, and Oprah's demographic - was supporting Hillary and is now supporting Obama. Not because I convinced her to vote my way, quite the opposite (she actually bought into that stupid "Obama grew up in a Madrassa and won't say the pledge" email, until recently). She watched the debates, started remembering the things she disliked about Hillary, and was at the same time very impressed with Obama and his positions. She feels no obligation whatsoever to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. In fact, it's not even a factor for her. And that, to me at least, is a sign that the glass ceiling is indeed broken here. That it doesn't matter.

Hillary and Baracks candidacies alone - complete with both of their front-runner statuses at various times - were enough to do that. At least for my mom. And when a woman who lived through the civil rights and women's lib eras and feels no obligation to vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, then we've really come a long way. Same with blacks who think Obama is full of sh*t (and I assure you, there are plenty).

Anyway, I digress. You and I don't often disagree, but here's one area where I think even if we do, in the end I think the country will be in great shape if either of us get what we want this time next year.

 

DR - I was mostly agreeing with you. The only point I was trying to make is that while Obama is not "race baiting," as you rightly claim, he and Oprah are making the issue more of a Change (black candidate) issue, as was Bill saying that Hillary, "could not make herself a male," as he did in the last days of the NH primaries.

I should not have included the last line of your quote in my original post. Look at it again and see if it does not make more sense.

Btw, I read that Oprah's daytime show has received a lot of negative emails regarding her new politcal career, mostly from women.

 

By the way, it seems that some media - and perhaps candidates - are eager to make something big out of Mrs. Clinton's comment about LBJ's role in the civil rights movement. I'm honestly surprised - at least the way I perceived it, Martin Luther King organized a great effort and was an incredible campaigner and orator, but it was still the president of the USA who eventually signed the laws... and iirc did a bit to bring them into being.

So what's your take on the issue?

 

Presidents may sign laws, but they don't draft them. That's what the legislature does...and the legislature doesn't pass laws that no one supports. Credit for the eventual success of our civil rights movement belongs not with the one who signed the bill(s), not with the ones who drafted the bill(s), but with the movement that created popular support for such initiatives in the first place.

LBJ definitely deserves credit for his efforts against the KKK and he was most certainly instrumental in the civil rights movement, but without the popular support created by MLK's movement, LBJ would never have been given the opportunity to act. Further, since he didn't write or pass the legislation in the House and Senate, it also becomes obvious that any president (from his party, at least) would also have passed the legislation...and this is where Clinton's argument starts to fall apart.

 

I think Hilary's whole point was that much of Obama's campaign platform is over-reaching and fairly unrealistic. Can he actually accomplish what he's promising? She claims she's got the experience to do that while Obama doesn't. Unfortunately, the whole thing devolved into a race thing.

 

That particular argument of hers is is really ridiculous, though. Obama served as a state senator from 1996-2004. This "inexperienced upstart" actually has about 12 years of legislative experience, which by my reckoning is 4 more years of experience holding public office than she has. Sorry, but first lady doesn't count. Obama also served for years as a community organizer and as the president of the Harvard law review. If Obama is inexperienced, what does that make her? It seems as if she's trying to make "I'm married to Bill Clinton" into a campaign platform. Ridiculous.