MyDD Blog Talk Radio Debate Wrap Up Show/Post Debate Thread

What did you think of tonight's Democratic debate? How was the format? Did anyone win? This and much, much more in tonight's edition of MyDD Blog Talk Radio. Feel free to use this as a post-debate thread or to listen in.

The call-in number for the show is (646) 652-2585. You can also chime in via AIM to "MyDDdotCOM". If you do not use AIM, you can send an email under the subject line "MyDD Blog Talk Radio" to jonathan-at-mydd-dot-com. If you prefer, you can also leave your question or comment in this thread.

Listen here live

Tags: Blog Talk Radio, debates (all tags)

Comments

137 Comments

CNN on

Yes!! Hillary teaches Obama on CNN

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: CNN on

Totally Agree.

by lonnette33 2007-07-23 05:24PM | 0 recs
Obama Equally Schooled Hillary on Iraq Vote

I actually think there was a two way street between Obama and Hillary Clinton in terms of schooling.  Yes, she bettered him on whether she would meet with foreign leaders.  

But equally...Obama "taught" Hillary Clinton when he looked at her in the face and essentially told her that she should not have supported the start of the war.  It was direct and strong, and it works for Obama.  

Bottom line:  if you repeatedly played those two clips back to back to Democratic voters (as opposed to pundits and journalists), my sense is that the "teaching" going on was a two way street, and essentially a wash.  

My guess is that Hillary Clinton supporters will want to trumpet the first teaching, and Obama supporters will want to trumpet the second teaching.  

by Demo37 2007-07-23 06:30PM | 0 recs
wow

I'm so thrilled this clash may get played again and again!! LOL WOW, it crystalizes their difference, one is a veteran, the other is rookie, one has substance, one is empty suit.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

His certainly less experienced than her and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, but is there any reason to throw the accusation of being an empty suit at him?

He has continually shown himself willing to fight for democratic values and to engage in courteous and high minded debate. Pretty far from an empty suit in my opinion.

by JDF 2007-07-23 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

Calm down. The person you're responding to is a shill for Hillary.

by PsiFighter37 2007-07-23 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

Obviously. But other people are going to read these comments and if the comments from such shills are ignored than people could take silence for agreement.

by JDF 2007-07-23 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

go to dailykos, the most anti-Hillary site. You can feel the real reaction there. LOL.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:15PM | 0 recs
a fan of the non-sequiter I see.

n/t

by JDF 2007-07-23 05:16PM | 0 recs
Hillary

Very big win for Hillary, CNN cmments.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

And then they show a focus group where she didn't even place in the top 3.

by PsiFighter37 2007-07-23 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Focus group? It's a complete joke. LOL

Hehe, here's what's from the dailykos today earlier:


Ok I gotta tell you (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by: Lois, libertyisliberal, cjallen
My best friend just got a call from CNN letting her know that she is going to be one of the people that they call right after the debate tonight for their `instant poll'. She's been told not to speak with anyone between 7-930. She got picked after she answered a robocall yesterday from them.

Now I should tell you about my friend. She's a preoperative transexual with AIDS, and she is also under medication for AIDS realted dementia, that works most of the time, altho she goes thru manic phases.

She also, during the robocall, gave neutral marks to all of the candidates except Biden, who she will never forgive for `kissing Thomas' ass" during the confirmation hearings almost 20 years ago, Richardson, because he `used to be a Republican' and Dodd `just because'.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

so the fact that a transexual with AIDS gets to participate makes the focus group a joke? There may be reasons to be dismissive of focus groups, but it's pretty disgusting if you're dismissing it for the reasons you suggest

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-23 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

The NH focus group of un-decided voters CHOSE Obama AS THE WINNER OF THE DEBATE.

by BDM 2007-07-23 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Then they show a focus group from Nevada where she ties for first place (with "neighbor" Richardson.)

by georgep 2007-07-23 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

bOTH cLINTON AND rICHARDSON GOT 6 VOTES EACH AND oBAMA GOT 5 VOTES.

by BDM 2007-07-23 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

its funny to watch the spin. It's like any glimpse that its not inevitable has the drones o ut enforce saying but she did this or that. we shall see the impact in due course

by bruh21 2007-07-23 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Another remark that basically says nothing and manages to be confrontational and trollish at the same time.   Oh well, same old, same old.  

by georgep 2007-07-23 07:43PM | 0 recs
Hillary won. nt

by bookgrl 2007-07-23 05:13PM | 0 recs
anyway

I'm out and will leave 'who wins' spin to the other guys here.

I'm happy, happy, happy tonight. The first part, Hillary was a bit bland, but she really hit it out of pack in the end.

Another great debate.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Wrap Up Show/Post

I really did not like the format of this debate. The video questions were sometimes good and other times not good at all. And the amount of time given to each candidate seemed uneven and lopsided to some degree. The commentators during break were clueless.

I think that Obama did much better during this debate than previous ones. And I think that Edwards scored some strong leadership points. The candidate that surprised me the most was Dodd who is not conceding a thing. Loved his commercial too. Hillary  was good, competent and had moments of greatness. Kucinich had a few good points and was charming. Biden was forceful and honest about withdraw and Darfur. His point about taking a year to withdraw is a serious statement. Most Democrats don't appreciate that fact but it is a military fact. It's probably one of the major reasons his candidacy hasn't gained any traction. Gravel was Gravel. Oy!

by DoIT 2007-07-23 05:18PM | 0 recs
Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

You say Biden was "forceful and honest about withdraw" from Iraq.

No way - he's DEAD WRONG.

Keeping 20,000 troops in Iraq as Biden advocates just means that the tens of thousands of insurgents and militia forces in Iraq will have a much easier time killing our troops.  They can concentrate all of their forces on a much smaller number of U.S. troops.

Biden castigates other Dems for wanting a rapid withdrawal of forces, but then Biden wants the anti-war vote.  So what does he say?  

Responsibly Drawdown US Troops

   * Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007
    * Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces

That is from Biden's website.  Going from 160,000 troops to 20,000 in less than six months is a rapid withdrawal.  

The difference between Biden's and Richardson's plans is Richardson doesn't compromise and try to have it both ways.  Richardson will get all of our troops out.  Richardson understands that our troops are just targets of all sides in a civil war.  

Baghdad is Iraq's largest city with 7 million residents.  Iraq has 15 other major cities, hundreds of smaller cities and towns and thousands of villages with another 20 million people in a nation the size of California.

We don't have nearly enough troops now in Iraq to bring peace and stability to the country - and never will absent re-instating the draft and sending over 600,000+ soldiers, which of course should not and will not occur.  

Biden, Edwards and Clinton were wrong to vote for the war. And Biden, Obama and Clinton are wrong today to advocate for an extended (even if reduced) deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq.  The scars of this war of choice by President Bush and the members of Congress that supported it will last for generations. The longer we delay the inevitable, the deeper the wounds are inflicted.

Only Richardson has a solid, crystal clear plan for Iraq is Richardson, for two reasons:

1.  He'll get the U.S. out completely and promptly - a total withdrawal.  

2.  Richardson has the foreign policy experience and expertise to wage the diplomatic offensive that will be necessary to see the region not descend into further conflict.  

This is what Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, Ret.) has said about Richardson's plan:

Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it.

Richardson is listening to the right former general on Iraq.  If you want to learn more about Gard's views read http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005 /11/00_gard-johns_there-are-risks-if-the -us-withdraws.htm

Whom with military expertise are Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Biden listening to? Probably many of the same generals that thought invading Iraq was a sound decision and are too cautious now to do what must be done, a full and complete withdrawal of our troops.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-23 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

I tend to agree with Richardson on this (especially versus Biden), but Richardson was pretty hawkish in the lead up to the war. It's worth pointing out because you make it seem like Richardson has always been against the war.

by clarkent 2007-07-24 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

The hawk leading up the war was Edwards.  Richardson urged diplomacy and patience, working with the U.N. and warning of the danger of the U.S. invading unilaterally.

Richardson's view, that the U.S. must be patient and place the matter of invading Iraq to a vote of the Security Council prior to commencing hostilities, was rejected by many in Congress, including John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, and ultimately was the path President Bush pursued.

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson criticized the Bush Administration's rush to war in an interview on CNN.  At the time, most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N.

Richardson defended the work of the U.N. Richardson explained how unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we're going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we're to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don't support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it's doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don't do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there's not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don't want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don't want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we've used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it's not doing that. So, it's going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that's the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That's the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq's behavior, let's do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don't do that, I think it's going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it's going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it's frustrating, but what's the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. It's not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we're under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let's be judicious. Let's be calm. Let's be patient.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-24 08:58AM | 0 recs
by clarkent 2007-07-24 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

You don't at all attempt to disagree with my reasoning but instead post a link to the Ryan Lizza hit piece in the New Republic?  Do you know anything about Lizza?  

On FOX news on February 26, 2003 Lizza praised Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards for their vote for the Iraq war resolution, commenting they knew "why we need to do what we're going to do in Iraq."

On March 7, 2003, Lizza on CNN said, "Bombing Iraq and leaving isn't going to be enough, we need to overthrow the regime." Yet, Lizza has the gall to criticize Governor Richardson on Iraq as being pro-war.

Lizza's profile of Bill Richardson is an embarrassment to The New Republic.  It starts with the Governor eating a hot dog and ends with him wanting another hot dog, mocking him along the way. Actions and statements by Richardson that contradict Lizza's story line - such as Richardson's insistence that President Bush return to the U.N. Security Council and place the question of invading Iraq to a vote - were omitted.  

You're putting your confidence in a person that advocated strongly for the US to invade Iraq - while Richardson was urging patience and diplomacy.  The New Republic, which loudly beat the drums of war on Iraq, is no position to criticize those that advocated reaching out to our allies and a last attempt at diplomacy prior to invasion.  

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-24 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

Did Richardson cosign a statement with neocons regarding Iraq, or didn't he?

by clarkent 2007-07-24 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

I don't have the Lizza article with me at present.  Could you cut and past the text the section of the article that your are referring to and I'll do my best to answer?  

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-24 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

On March 20, 2003, the day after US bombs dropped on Baghdad, Bill Richardson signed an optimistic neocon statement on the war. "Together with sucessful democratic reform in Iraq," it read, "the Gulf has the potential of making a clean break with a past rooted in repression and entering into the growing global community of democratic states." The statement was released by Freedom House, the human rights organization beloved by hawks and the interventionist wings of both parties. Richardson was a truste of Freedom House and had been the organization's chairman before he became governor. Other signatories included Kenneth Adelman, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Diana Negroponte, and James Woolsey.

by clarkent 2007-07-25 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

Inspired by your question last night I researched the matter and wrote a diary dedicated to the Ryan Lizza hit piece that addresses this text and shows how Lizza sought to distort Richardson's record on Iraq.

See
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/25/1343 47/564

Let's continue the conversation there.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-25 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

Dead Wrong eh?

Anyway, what Biden said about taking a year to withdraw safely is just a military fact, not a pandering talking point. And he is pushing for a political solution which no other candidate is doing. He has actually proposed a political solution rather than just talk about the need for one like every other candidate. So yeah, forceful and honest.

by DoIT 2007-07-24 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Biden's Plan for Iraq Is Dead Wrong

Biden was wrong on Iraq when he voted for the war, and he's wrong today in wanting to keep a military force in the country indefinitely. If Biden thinks it will take a year to get our troops out of Iraq, he ought to change his website which says we can drawn down our forces from 150,000 to 20,000 by the end of this year.

From the Rolling Stone in 2006:

Or maybe it's just that Biden, more than almost anyone in American public life, will do or say anything that he thinks will secure him even the most temporary electoral advantage. A year and a half ago, back when the Iraq war was still a winner politically, Biden spent a lot of his time slamming other Democrats for not being On Board enough with the war effort, and he even went out of his way to bitch out Democrats for criticizing Ronald Reagan.

As he told the New Yorker: "Everybody knew 'Reagan is dangerous,' remember? He talked about freedom, so what do we do? We say it's a bad speech, dangerous speech," Biden said, adding that Democrats were "making the same mistakes again."

Biden at the time also complained that Republicans were getting away with taking credit for the idea of a pre-emptive war, when it was really a Democratic idea. "What is so transformational in the last four years is that these assholes who wouldn't give President Clinton the authority to use force" have now become, Biden said, moral interventionists. He added: "Give me a fucking break."

Of course all of that mine's-bigger-than-yours militarist rhetoric is staying in Biden's garage this election season, as he's chosen to attack the Republicans on Iraq now, not his fellow Democrats, which ought to tell you where the polls on that issue are. But Biden attacking Rumsfeld even on the issue of his conduct of the war is outrageous in itself, for other reasons.

Right around the time Biden and his fellow Democrats launched their Rumsfeld attack, the Defense Department released a study showing that an inordinately high number of military recruits were being disqualified from service in Iraq because of debt problems, often resulting from so-called "payday loans," i.e. very high-interest loans made between paychecks by predatory lenders who set up show outside military bases.

The study made the front page of USA Today and was briefly a media sensation, with many commentators noting the injustice of a system that allows credit companies to prey upon young men and women about to serve in the Iraq bloodbath. Making matters worse was the fact that Congress voted specifically to deny debt protection to servicemen a year and a half ago.

Back in early 2005, Senator Dick Durbin proposed an amendment to the infamous S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 -- better known as the Bankruptcy Bill, a law pushed by credit companies which made it more or less impossible to declare bankruptcy.

Durbin's amendment, called the G.I. Protection Amendment, would have exempted U.S. servicemen and women from the so-called "means test," a procedure which under the new law every bankruptcy aspirant must submit to before he is allowed to sue for bankruptcy. It also would have protected soldiers from losing their homes to creditors during their deployments, and would have offered some debt protections to the spouses of slain servicemen. It also would have offered some protections to soldiers in trouble because of payday loans.

Now, the logic of this amendment seemed unassailable. Soldiers sent to war often end up in financial trouble, and reservists sent to war for long deployments have it even worse, often seeing their small businesses fail or bills pile up while they trade in their normal salaries for meager Army wages. It seems like a small concession to make to soldiers to offer some relief on these fronts, in exchange for asking them to risk their necks for some pointless military adventure dreamed up by a bunch of half-wit Ivy League trust-fund babies who'll never go broke and whose kids will never serve.

So Durbin's amendment made sense, but of course it died, 62-38. Most of the Republicans voted against it, but they weren't alone. Some Democrats voted nay, too, including that great old friend of the credit industry, Joe Biden.

In the election cycle immediately preceding the historic Bankruptcy Bill, Joe Biden collected some $62,125 from the credit industry, putting him in 12th place among all American politicians. To date, for his career, he's taken over a quarter of a million dollars from credit card companies, many of which are headquartered in Delaware. So it was no surprise that Biden was one of the chief pimps for this notorious law.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-24 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk
Focus groups are coming in for Obama - 2 CNN groups one Fox group. They are getting stuck on Ethics, and really took to Obama on that - and are seeing every issue as framed first by ethics.
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk

I listened to the CNN coverage.  They had one focus group for Obama, the other one had Clinton tied for first.  Where did you get your "2 CNN focus groups" for Obama from?  Seems like an errant comment.

by georgep 2007-07-23 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk
Online board...just saw what they meant by the second - the NV group tracked up for Obama he just didn't overtake Clinton's pre-debate lead.
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk

Fox Focus Group.  They came in for Hilary and switched to Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6QhMV0Mb UU

by Jalenth 2007-07-23 09:55PM | 0 recs
Nuclear Power

Edwards is against it; Obama and Clinton are open to it.

Obama talks a good game on money and politics, but call me cynical for thinking that his support for nuclear power has something to do with all the money gets from the nuclear power industry. I mean, why else would he embrace such a dangerous, environmentally unfriendly form of power?

And he has a history of doing the nuclear industry's bidding. Not good.

The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07042 007.html

by david mizner 2007-07-23 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Nuclear Power
excelon does a lot to advance clean eneregy research...they are the oil guys enemy
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Nuclear Power

Hillary said she might be open to it IF a safe way of disposing of the waste was discovered. It is an important distinction.

by DoIT 2007-07-23 05:31PM | 0 recs
More Nuclear Power Plants for the Environment

The issue of whether the US should build more nuclear power plants...well...who would have thought that it would separate the three front runners?  That was an interesting and unexpected development.  

But there it was tonight.  Edwards is against more nuclear power plants.  And both HIllary Clinton and Barack Obama think that it certainly should be considered in our future.

The millions of Democrats who belong to the environmental community are overwhelmingly against more nuclear power plants in the US.  If they are made aware of this difference, it will assuredly help John Edwards.  (Interestingly, it may even help Edwards in Nevada since they would be slated to get all of Hillary's and Barack's extra radioactive waste.)

Day to day, week to week, it is becoming clearer and clearer that Edwards is the strongest presidential candidate on the environment.  Sierra Club members take note...

by Demo37 2007-07-23 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: More Nuclear Power Plants for the Environment

(Interestingly, it may even help Edwards in Nevada since they would be slated to get all of Hillary's and Barack's extra radioactive waste.)

If it were only true. Hillary stated that she would consider nuclear energy ONLY if we found a way to safely dispose of it. Hell, even I might support that and I have been completely opposed to it since the early 70s.

by DoIT 2007-07-23 05:52PM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton Said She Was Agnostic

Oh c'mon...I will have to go back to the transcript, but my recollection was this: Hillary Clinton said she was "agnostic", which means she is sitting on the fence about whether we should have more nuclear power plants.

The millions of environmental Democrats that I am aware of are NOT sitting on the fence about nuclear power. They explicitly oppose more nuclear power plants.  It is that simple!  Let's at least be honest about that.  

She further stated that she was hoping that American technology would help us solve the problems of nuclear power so...we could maybe build more nuclear power plants.  No environmentalist that I know feels this way.  Sorry to break the news, but they are simple about this:  they don't want more nuclear power plants.  They don't want more federal research on nuclear power or CTL.  

by Demo37 2007-07-23 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton Said She Was Agnostic

Considering that we already HAVE nuclear power plants and LOTS of nuclear waste it would seem an intelligent proposal to try to have the American scientific community to find a way to dispose of this waste safely. I have actually been against nuclear power plants since they tried to build one in my city during the early 70s. And not far from the city I reside in is a cold war facility that still has lots of nuclear waste. So as an environmentalist I strongly support research to dispose of this waste safely. To not support such research is to not be an environmentalist.

by DoIT 2007-07-23 06:24PM | 0 recs
An Interesting Point

Yes, assuredly, the federal government should spend some money to support this type of research
(1 billion every year?)

But her response suggested that she was hoping that this research (billions more?) would make nuclear power more attractive to build in the future.

The sad fact is that federal spending on nuclear energy since the 1950's has outpaced federal spending on solar and wind by about 1 billion to one.  IMHO, if you flipped this federal dollar picture, today, you would probably be looking at a country dominated by solar and wind.

IMHO, most environmental votes want a Democratic candidate to explicitly deemphasize federal spending on nuclear power, not to say..."I am agnostic about the need for more nuclear power plants."

After this debate, both Obama and Clinton have some explaining to do to the millions of environmental voters.

by Demo37 2007-07-23 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: An Interesting Point

As someone who's grown up in Nevada all their life I think your seriously misrepresenting both Clinton's response and this states stance on Yucca Mountain.

As much as it might make sense to connect nuclear power and Yucca mountain its not typically connected in Nevada. Yucca mountain is an issue all onto itself. In fact most Nevadans I know would welcome research into how to dispose of nuclear waste. If you don't want waste put in Nevada why would you not want to figure out a better way to get rid of it.

Also agnostic doesn't mean you're on the fence. Agnostic means you're not particularly for it or against it. On the fence implies that you're trying to seeking to choose but can't make up your mind. Ask an agnostic if it means theyre on the fence,lol

by world dictator 2007-07-23 07:07PM | 0 recs
Nevada Specifically...vs...Environmental Voters

I agree that Nevada's political relationship to the issue of Yucca mountain is complex and unpredictable.  It is an issue unto itself in Nevada.  Furthermore, how Yucca mountain sometimes can and cannot factor into statewide elections...is very tough to call.  That explains why my Nevada comment was parenthetical and used the word "may."  Very, very unpredictable stuff there in Nevada.

However, on the issue of whether the national environmental community will support a candidate who prevaricates like Hillary Clinton did on whether the country should have more nuclear power plants by saying she is "agnostic on that question"...well...I am quite confident that the national environmental community would greatly prefer a presidential candidate who simply and cleary states that they are against more nuclear power plants.  

The national environmental community is NOT agnostic on that question. Hillary apparently is.  Strange...but true.  

by Demo37 2007-07-23 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re:

Right now the race is between Clinton and Obama.  Obama has stated a clear preference, Edwards is on the opposite side of this.  Clinton is in the middle.  If you are correct about the environmental folks, then Clinton scored points over Obama with that crowd.  Now, mind you, I am going with the premise that, unless a lot changes, this race is currently a duel between Clinton and Obama, in which case Clinton comes out the better of the two when it comes to the environment.  

Speaking of Yucca Mountain:

http://politics.lasvegassun.com/2007/07/ clinton-ups-the.html

by georgep 2007-07-23 07:35PM | 0 recs
Still Early By Traditional Standards

IIRC, at about this juncture in 2003, the race was between Dean and Gephardt...

On the question of no more nuclear power plants, Edwards is clear...and I think he will receive some electoral benefit from this...but that assumes this fact becomes widely known within the environmental community.

As far as Obama, like CTL, I think he is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one.  For better or worse, Illinois is a nuclear power state, so it would be very difficult for him to say no more nuclear power plants.  So...he did the politician thing tonight and said:  I think we need to "consider" it.  

As for Hillary Clinton, truth be told, as of tonight...she is straddling the fence.  I would like to see the Sierra Club force her off the fence, but history suggests that can be tough to do with traditional politicians like Hillary Clinton...

Also, I would be curious to know if in all of American history, the word "agnostic" has ever been used in a presidential debate.  I am guessing not.  One can certainly praise Hillary Clinton for her political use of language on occasion:  she can turn a phrase every so often.  

But you also must criticize her when she makes a political mistake with the language.  On this one, I think she has made a mistake.  She inadvertently used an unusual word which captures an annoying habit of hers: she likes to fuzz things up.

On the Yucca mountain cite, that is interesting.  It shows Hillary Clinton playing some political cards with respect to Yucca...as are all the other candidates apparently.  

However, I found this quote kind of interesting from the article:

Yucca Mountain's opening is 20 years behind schedule, and some think any delay at this juncture could doom the project as the pro-nuclear Bush administration comes to an end.

This quote brings us right back to the original question:  is Hillary Clinton pro-nuclear?  Her answer tonight?  Maybe... maybe not.  

John Edwards answer?  Clear and concise:  no more nuclear plants.  Sierra Club members take note...

by Demo37 2007-07-23 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Still Early By Traditional Standards

I think you are overstating the issue.  Clinton is against nuclear power, UNLESS we can find ways to dispose of waste in a way that is safe and inexpensive.   That may never be achievable, in which case Clinton will forever more be against nuclear power.   It is a simple IF, THEN scenario that makes sense.  

As for your Dean/Gephardt scenario, come one now.   Clinton and Obama are of different caliber than all of the candidates in 2004.  Edwards will have a hard time catching up, he is trying to fend off Richardson in New Hampshire at this point.  

If in the end the race is between Clinton and Obama (which I expect,) Clinton will be the better candidate for the environmental community, no question.  

by georgep 2007-07-23 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Still Early By Traditional Standards

As I've mentioned in other threads this is very dishonest for you to claim shes on the fence.

She clearly stated that she doesnt see nuclear power being used in the future because of safety and waste.

by world dictator 2007-07-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: An Interesting Point

most environmental votes want a Democratic candidate to explicitly deemphasize federal spending on nuclear power

I do not disagree with you but there are some environmentalists that think it a crime against nature to eat meat, actually many of them. I am on the side of educated environmentalists with sane proposals to remedy serious problems. Yes, what you say about where Clinton "might" be coming from is true. But it also "might not" be where she is coming from since she did not state what you say she might mean. What she did actually say is that we should address the problem of waste BEFORE making any decisions one way or the other about nuclear energy.

Her position is a sane one. Let's research this, put dollars and American ingenuity behind it and see if we CAN solve the waste problem. Then and only then can we make a rational decision about nuclear energy.

by DoIT 2007-07-24 04:32AM | 0 recs
Clinton opposes Yucca Mountain

Clinton opposes Yucca Mountain in Nevada:

Clinton ups the ante on Yucca Mountain
By Michael J. Mishak and Lisa Mascaro
Published in the Sun on July 21, 2007

After more than a week of watching her Democratic rivals capture local headlines with their Nevada visits, Sen. Hillary Clinton launched a haymaker from 2,500 miles away Friday, seizing ownership of Nevada's signature issue: Yucca Mountain.

In a late afternoon conference call from Washington, a well-prepped Clinton called for congressional hearings on Yucca Mountain, the proposed repository for the nation's nuclear waste about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

In particular, she wants the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which she serves, to pressure the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adopt clear radiation standards that would ensure public health and safety. She also called on the Department of Energy to halt the project's application until the EPA takes action.

"There has been a great deal of confusion and stonewalling by the administration to finding appropriate, scientifically based information," Clinton said. "We need to get this information on the record and do everything we can to lay the groundwork to make it clear that we will not proceed with Yucca Mountain."

If elected president, Clinton said, she would "not go forward" with the project. In a past interview with the Sun, Clinton said she would refuse to fund Yucca Mountain.

http://politics.lasvegassun.com/2007/07/ clinton-ups-the.html

by hwc 2007-07-23 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Nuclear Power

This is a serious problem for Obama I think

First, nuclear power IS bad.

Second, a key constituency - one I think Obama must lockdown to win - is very opposed to nuclear power, though not monolithic (unfortunately).

Third, easily viewed as quid pro quo, whether fair or not.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-07-23 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Nuclear Power

nuclear power is bad? ask the Japanese and the Russians

by rapcetera 2007-07-23 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Nuclear Power

Yes, ask the Japanese as the uncover additional discharges from their largest plant in the wake of the earthquake.

Yes, ask the Japanese where they put the waste and how it is that they do so safely.

Yes, ask the Ukranians about Chernobyl.

Yes, ask the Russians where how they deal with the waste and will do so effectively for 1000s of years.

Yes, ask the indigenous peoples of Central Asia and the Four Corners, about the joys of mill tailings.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-07-24 07:50AM | 0 recs
Hillary

dailykos:


I have to agree (3+ / 0-)

I'm a huge Edwards fan thanks to his strong stance on economic issues and his determination to return America to.. y'know, America again.

But that being said I think it was clear that Hilary had the most impressive presence on that stage as well as some of the most effective and cogently delivered answers.  

Are people's issues with just the DLC and her late turn around on the Iraq war?

I mean Bill Clinton the sequel doesn't sound so bad and frankly that's how she comes across....

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I am opposed to Hillary's candidacy

1.) residual force left in Iraq to protect "vital american intersts"

  1. all options left on table vis a vie Iran (same langugae Cheney uses).
  2. all too clever use of language, and phrasing to cloud her real opinion
  3. she voted for war powers.  how do we get past that?
  4. I am opposed to imperial and dynastic presidencies (both and either).
  5. She gets her money from big donor sources-- they are the problem, not the solution
  6. She started out as a nixonian republican, I have a problems with that-- I can forgive it ( I have w Leon Panetta, my ex congressman), but I need to hear her explain her evolution.
  7. She stayed w Bill- he screwed her, her family, Al GOre's chances, and the nation-- and she uses her relationship as a political tool-- doesn't speak well for how she sees/uses relationships.
  8. When the camera is not on her she is smirking like the chimp. (I dont trust her)
10)She supported the Patriot Act.
11) she is pro Free trade even without safeguards for workers and environment...

Having said that Id support her if she was the nominee, Id rather see someone else.  Currently supporting Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich having stopped supporting Obama, considering supporting Gravel to keep his voice active as he is weird and intreresting although needs anger management bad.

by jono 2007-07-23 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I am opposed to Hillary's candidacy

I wonder how many people who are opposed to the clinton dynasty voted for Al Gore in 2000 and then claimed he was robbed of the election afterwards

by world dictator 2007-07-23 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I am opposed to Hillary's candidacy

David Gergen said that Clinton  more heavily leans to the Baker-Hamilton report  for leaving a residual force of 80-100,000 troops in Iraq. He spoke this on CNN tonight's debate analysis.

This will keep us in Iraq for a long time and the war will just continue with a Clinton Presidency.
No different than Bush.

by BDM 2007-07-23 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why I am opposed to Hillary's candidacy

what the hell does that have to do with the question of a Dynasty?

and isn't David Gergen a REPUBLICAN commentator?

by world dictator 2007-07-24 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Why I am opposed to Hillary's candidacy

But he's also a former Clinton official from the first Clinton Whitehouse. But I'm not convinced he has any insider knowledge on Hillary anymore

by Ernst 2007-07-24 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk Radio Debate Wrap Up Show/Post

Edwards' "Hair" video is absolutely brilliant.

My take: Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are topnotch candidates: personable, well-spoken, good positions, and clever and deft enough to be able to play the political game to get through the general election and WIN.

All I really want is a DEMOCRAT who can WIN decisively.

I like the positions, answers of other candidates, but I don't think they have the polish or charisma or political instincts to be able to handle the vicious Republican assault that is just over the horizon--a veritable tsunami.

by Coral 2007-07-23 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk
Did anybody else notice "you can change the world" at the end of Obama's video? The campaign is reforcasting his vision to be larger, more substantial, historical "a new day" movement.
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:42PM | 0 recs
What about Global Poverty?

While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies, campaign advertisement and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like to all presidential candidates support more international problems that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

by aileench 2007-07-23 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk
"What I will Do" Future Richardson 16 times Obama 15 times "What I have done" Past Clinton 11 times
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk

What I will do -  Talk, promises, what a politician must say, perhaps empty rhetoric

What I have done - Action, proof, something that can be pointed to as evidence that something similar will occur, as it has already occured in the past with this person involved.

by georgep 2007-07-23 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk

Or promises versus accomplishments.

by Ernst 2007-07-24 02:00AM | 0 recs
Obama stole the show.

Answered critics.  Countered attacks.  Learned the game of sound bytes with the Mitt Romney bit on money. Drew a sharp contrast with him and Hillary on Iraq in terms of when she should have begun to ask questions on the war.  Addressed the underlying issue of healthcare which has a much bigger problem than simply just having a plan.

He really was on his A game and has evolved considerably since his first debate appearance.

by lovingj 2007-07-23 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama stole the show.

but showed his lack of experience on meeting w rogue leaders--- points to Clinton on that important issue of experience-- sorry to say as I really dont want her to win.

by jono 2007-07-23 07:07PM | 0 recs
freeper land
The most amusing quote from freeper land

To: Jet Jaguar
Why do I get the feeling that Hillary knows the question before it's asked? She's just a little too quick with her responses
by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: freeper land
it is because she is drilled on pandering - did you catch when she said "congress shouldn't get a raise until the minimum wage goes up" it goes up tomorrow, but she was on last years talking points.
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: freeper land

Oh, please.  She has the "it."   I felt Obama spoke a lot of words, but oftentimes said nothing.  Whatever Clinton said was precise and on the money (even if you don't agree with her, you got her point.)  

by georgep 2007-07-23 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: freeper land

Maybe you should look at the focus groups where Obama took Clinton supporters in every group.  Apparently, they think he has the "it."

by Obama08 2007-07-23 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: freeper land

I look at the Dailykos poll, where Clinton, despite being unpopular on that site and way behind in straw polls, came in almost in first place (just a couple dozen votes out of first place,) which tells me that if she can convince  that many Kossacks to believe that she actually won the debate, she probably did.  

Besides, the scientifically conducted SurveyUSA poll makes it look like Clinton won this debate by a mile.  

by georgep 2007-07-23 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: freeper land

did you catch when she said "congress shouldn't get a raise until the minimum wage goes up" it goes up tomorrow, but she was on last years talking points.

That's a case where the CNN "fact checker" hadn't checked his facts. Back last spring, Congress was debating an increase in the minimum wage AND an increase in Congressional pay.

Clinton filed an amendment to the appropriations bill prohibiting a pay raise for Congress UNTIL the minimum wage increase was passed. As you (should) know, the minimum wage increase was passed as part of the military emergency supplemental vote.

Clinton's answer had nothing to do with tomorrow. The reason the minimum wage increase is going into effect is that Congress passed it. CNN's "analyst" was lost in the ozone.

by hwc 2007-07-23 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk Radio Debate Wrap Up Show/Post

My scorecard.

  1. Clinton - smarter than everyone on the stage, focused, credible, very impressive performance, hit rogue states and gender out the park (and I don't like her rogues answer), hated nuclear dodge
   2. Dodd - some great moments, good pacing, solid answers, glad your in the US Senate
   3. Obama - I'm coming around to "what does that mean"?  Mechanisms?  No "bipartisan" solution to Social Security please. Improved some in the latter stages
   4. Biden - had me going on Darfur, but, no.  Where do you think he sees himself compared to Jesus?  Cool on "your baby" from the Michigan Militia freak
   5. Edwards - some highlights on the war, good corporate rants, good on reparations, some very weak moments, get a coherent gay marriage answer, nailed nuclear power.  Dropped two positions on the coat alone.  I'm stunned by the smallness
   6. Richardson - basically weak on everything except education, very unimpressive, did like him calling out GOPers on voter suppression
   7. Kucinich - ugh, McLain, crystals, "democrats failed", sorry.  Says some great things but I have a New Age hangup
   8. Gravel - take your drip and go home

Format was terrible.  Terrible.  Not opposed in principle, but implementation weak.

Really enjoyed global warming reduced to 4th grade level.

No more Anderson Cooper.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-07-23 05:56PM | 0 recs
edwards

Edwards' comment on Hillary's coat was really weird. Geez.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk Radio Debate Wrap Up Show/Post
Obama attacked Clinton on her asking for withdrawl plans. A good moderator would have stopped for response- Cooper did not.
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 06:01PM | 0 recs
Withdraw response

I agree with you. Hillary was entitled to respond but was not offered the chance. I thought it odd.

by DoIT 2007-07-23 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk Radio Debate Wrap Up Show/Post

yeah the tempo of the debate seemed off. Maybe its just me but i prefer confrontation debates with clash. This one seemed to very much float aimlessly

by world dictator 2007-07-23 06:13PM | 0 recs
confrontational

I also prefer confrontational debate, but we'll have to wait for another year.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:15PM | 0 recs
edwards

dailykos:


Clinton / Edwards. (0+ / 0-)
I'm an Edwards guy but Hillary did best.  Again.

Her comment about not meeting with the outcast leaders (Castro, Kim, etc.) in her first year was exceedingly impressive.  And had the effect of blowing Obama's response out of the water without criticizing him.

Hillary's response to the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton question was one of the greatest uses of deadpan humor I've ever heard in a candidate.  She really pulled it off when she didn't laugh in the face of the crowd's uproar.

I'm Gore, Edwards.  But Clinton is strong.  

Very strong.

I can see a President Hillary Clinton.

Edwards supporters, please come on, We'll welcome you!!

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards
Why are you quoting comments from DailyKos? I could go find an Obama supporter there thinking Gravel did a good job - I guess you could comment to that suppoter directly if you were allowed on DKos. What are you doing?
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards

dailykos is overwelmingly pro-Edwards, anti-Hillary, so it's interesting to see the reaction there.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards
they have also had 2000 comments on the debate tonight - why should we care?
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards

believe me, it's not like i was digging the needle among haystack. Tons of compliments from Edwards corner...
Another instance...


Hillary (30+ / 0-)
Recommended by: Trix, SarahLee, casamurphy, Delaware Dem, SallyCat, 2lucky, Eternal Hope, sxp151, grrtigger, michael1104, enough already, SneakySnu, campskunk, seanleckey, Timroff, sd4david, Clem Yeobright, judy99, JoieDe, Phil S 33, Marcus Junius Brutus, Albatross, LibChicAZ, Potus2020, Bridge Master, arogue7, JoeW, KnowVox, Andrew40, TDE
I'm sorry, I love John Edwards more than most (and have given him money), but Hillary stole the stage in presence and cogent answers.

This is the first debate I've watched and I was shocked to reach this conclusion.  

"You should run for office like you're one vote behind and if you get there, you should act like you won by one vote." - Tony Knowles

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards


Mr. Blades.....she is slowly but surely winning (12+ / 0-)

by Delaware Dem

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards

Wow.... Hillary is amazing....amazingly able to ride the fence on everything.

by rbrianj 2007-07-23 06:30PM | 0 recs
That's easy to find on dKos,

but could you find a Gravel supporter who thought ... hm. Could you find a Gravel supporter?

by BingoL 2007-07-23 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: That's easy to find on dKos,
they don't have the internet back in 1976 - so likely not.
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: That's easy to find on dKos,

Sad but true as he has some very interesting ideas and his cirticism of the source of money for our candidates is not to be overlooked (at our peril).

by jono 2007-07-23 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards

I think you have a point Card but in all honesty I was VERY suprised by the positive reaction Clinton got on Dkos. I think she's had better debates, though this one was solid, but it seemed to click for a lot of people over there.

by world dictator 2007-07-23 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards

actually, to be objective, she was a little off at the beginning, not as passionate as Edwards or Obama on some questions. But when the questions came up with more substance, she just hit it out of the pack, especially that foreign policy question. She can always seize the moment.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards

The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton response was out of the ballpark.    Incredible use of humor on the fly like that.  

by georgep 2007-07-23 07:19PM | 0 recs
okay

I'm calling the quit for tonight. LOL.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:03PM | 0 recs
Obama vs. Clinton

Obama/Clinton clash on CNN again. Wow. I love it. replay and replay!!

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:04PM | 0 recs
Kookcincih did it -- he tarred the Democrats on TV

Good for him.  The freak must be porud.  I so hope he loses his primary challenge.

Jack Laughfertyon CNN posted seized on his nonse and posted looney email after looney email on Iraq is all the Democrats fault,

Newsflash:  Iraq is the fault of Bush and the Republicans

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:06PM | 0 recs
Best You Tude

Edwards hands down.

I also thought Edwards caught the wost break question wise.  He got some tough questions.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Best You Tude

yeah i think it was very unfair to target him with that gay marriage question and to gloss over it or skip it entirely for other candidates.

by world dictator 2007-07-23 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Best You Tude
he did do himself well... I really like Obama and Edwards together - they make a good team
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Best You Tude

That question was completely unnecessary, especially they spent so much time on it. I'm so tired of those gocha questions.

by areyouready 2007-07-23 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Best You Tude

I agree.  Harping on the question of gay marriage was overdone.   I felt bad for Edwards to be put on the spot like that, especially having to repeat the answer because the Reverend did not hear it before.  

by georgep 2007-07-23 07:39PM | 0 recs
Video montage
The Clinton and Obama videos were an example of the campaigns... Obama was movement based "you can change the world"... Hillary was George Bush Sucks - both are true. Was Kucinich on the Home Shopping Network?
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 06:18PM | 0 recs
Obama Girl in the post debate spin room

Geez who got her in.   Her being all grass roots generated and all.

Sheesh.  Maybe she won a contest --- go back stage at the debate.

Or maybe she and her while bit is a fruad?  Who knows?

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:24PM | 0 recs
by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:24PM | 0 recs
What should we ask the republicans?
by CardBoard 2007-07-23 06:26PM | 0 recs
Elizabeth Edwards

I am a huge fan of the Edwards family.  They are the American dream.  Bright, caring, attractive, and striving.  

I have made remarks about the Edwards campaign of late and the mistake I think they have made about putting Mrs. Edards too far out in front and letting her personalty drawf John's.  I think it is and was a mistake.  I thik the candidate should be the primary voice and focus of a campaign.

That being said, I can't help but notice tonight in a post debate interview how small Elizabeth Edwards looked.   I am not sure if it is diet, treatment, or result of her disease but she appeared on camera to have lost significant weight.  I hope she is well.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-23 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

I also think pushing Elizabeth out to discuss Edwards policy is taking attention away from John Edwards. Tonight's post debate interview on CNN was with Elizabeth Edwards and not John.  It was immediately following the debates and Biden was in the interview queue, so why not John Edwards.  It seems like it would have been the perfect time to follow up with debate points, while the viewers were still tuned in.

by Kingstongirl 2007-07-23 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

The nomination will be won among women voters. Women make up 60% of the Democratic Party. She has a stranglehold on women support right now, because she is a woman. The only way Edwards can beat her is to try and drive a wedge in her support. He cannot effectively do this, being a man. He would more likely alienate women by attacking Hillary. Elizabeth can do it more effectively because she is a woman and she has a very high favorable rating with voters.  

by rbrianj 2007-07-23 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

I understand the strategy, but I don't think it's working.  Sending your wife out to attack Hillary by saying she has not been a strong advocate for women and children convinces them that John Edwards the candidate is a stronger advocate for women and children how?  If you are going to attack the author of It Takes a Village, who I believe has given the proceeds(or most of it) from that book to charity, you have to come harder than that.  Also the timing of the attack was poor, it sucked up the media attention from John Edwards who was doing his anti-poverty tour, the central theme of his campaign.  Finally, debate night should be all about the candidates.  Wolf Blitzer should have had John Edwards touting his issues and the points he scored in the debate, not Elizabeth Edwards.  IMO, it is starting to appear that she is speaking FOR John Edwards, rather than on BEHALF of John Edwards.

by Kingstongirl 2007-07-23 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

Don't think it's working? This is something that will take months to do. We will see if it works, but somebody has to attack her...none of the other candidates are doing it. They are afraid of alienating women. It's been nothing but a Hillary lovefest. Something has to be done or we are going to have Clinton assume the throne.

by rbrianj 2007-07-23 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

Looking past the hyperbole, The problem with your comment is that it isn't working. Elizabeth's comments aren't denting Hillary while she gets the short end of the stick. Sometimes it's better simply not to engage the enemy instead of losing a battle.

Elizabeth is losing goodwil while their campaign gets nothing in return. Quite a few wars have been won by simply waiting untill the timing was right... What they're doing now is actually hurting them. Making your scenerio even more likely. Patience is a virtue.

by Ernst 2007-07-24 02:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

How do u quantify something like that in week? By what the media says?

by rbrianj 2007-07-24 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

By the fact that this is the second time it has happened and that both times it created more trouble for her and Edwards then for Hillary.

And yes going by what the media says you'll get a pretty good picture what people will hear and what the reaction of the public will be. But if you don't want to believe me, go ahead.

by Ernst 2007-07-24 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that Edwards can only become President by riding the coattails of his spouse?

by hwc 2007-07-23 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

I think it's more like using the resources you have to their best use. Edwards can't attack Clinton directly but probably needs to do so.

It's not that different then Hillary using Bill on the stump. Problem is that Bill is very careful not to upstage Hillary. Problem with the Edwardses is that John has a less defined profile then Hillary and Elizabeth isn't as skillful as Bill so it's actually backfiring. But I can't blame them for trying.

by Ernst 2007-07-24 02:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Elizabeth Edwards

He was doing a webcast, answering more questions directly from voters.

by clarkent 2007-07-23 07:59PM | 0 recs
WOW!!!

While CNN has spent their time advocating for Hillary's so-called stellar performance, their real time debate meter showed her behind Obama, Biden and Edwards. She only had 8%.

ROTFLMAO

Maybe the voters are smarter than believing all the pro-Hillary propaganda and the so called unbiased political pundits....such as Donna Brazile, Jeffrey Toobin. I guess we will see!

by rbrianj 2007-07-23 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: WOW!!!

Yeah, sure, here we have a perfect example of another "conspiracy theorist."   They ALL want Clinton to win, do well, gain the nomination.  "They" have conspired, and it really is not fair.  

by georgep 2007-07-23 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: WOW!!!

No here we have a perfect example of a "media apologist"

by rbrianj 2007-07-23 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: WOW!!!

A "media apologist"?  I just don't buy into all these conspiracy theories.

They are usually crap.  Tinfoil hat stuff.   I suppose the Pentagon throwing Clinton a lowball she was able to hit out of the park last week was part of the conspiracy by right-wingers to get Clinton the nomination so she'll be easy and sad prey for the Repugnicans come November, right?

by georgep 2007-07-23 09:29PM | 0 recs
Republican Strategist picks Hillary winner

Republicans Continue Hillary Lovefest

The Republicans are so obvious. I guess not to you though.  

by rbrianj 2007-07-23 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Strategist picks Hillary winner

Yes, yes thousands of Republicans are secretly coordinating all their actions without anybody else hearing about it to give the person their base dislike the most the best shot a democrat had at the precidentcy in 30 years.

On the vague hope that they'll over come the huge handicaps the republican face that way. Even though her campaign is flawless and her numbers are strong.

Riiight... On the bright side, I do know a wholesale supplier of tinfoil if you are interested...

by Ernst 2007-07-24 02:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Strategist picks Hillary winner

I love tinfoil.

by rbrianj 2007-07-24 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Strategist picks Hillary winner

I thought you would...

by Ernst 2007-07-24 10:32AM | 0 recs
The Comment With the Most Applause

In the past, I have had to wade through comments from certain Hillary supporters that suggested that Hillary "won" a previous debate because a single one of her comments had the greatest amount of applause from the audience.  (The DC debate.)

Can I ask the authors of those prior comments to concede that in tonight's debate, Joe Biden had the single comment with the greatest amount of applause (concerning a disturbed man calling his gun his baby)...and thus...Joe Biden won the debate?  :)

by Demo37 2007-07-23 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Comment With the Most Applause

Clinton had the biggest line when she answered the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton question.   Roaring applause.   I don't care much for Biden, whatever he says is more or less opportunistic, in my opinion.

Edwards seemed overly nervous throughout.  I like the guy, though.  Any chance he'll be part of a cabinet?   He is not in any national office or running for one, so that would be a natural progression, right?  

by georgep 2007-07-23 07:29PM | 0 recs
Do We Have to Argue Over an Objective Fact?

C'mon George, you watched the same thing I did.  Biden's response got the longest applause by far.  

Do I have to go back and time the two of them?  Can you do me a favor and do it?!  

(IIRC, the length of applause for Biden's response to the baby gun was almost double the applause for Hillary's "we are not a dynasty" response.)  

by Demo37 2007-07-23 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Do We Have to Argue Over an Objective Fact?

So, then, according to you, Biden won the debate.  

No, in reality you were offering a simple non sequitur.  While it is true that Clinton had some major zingers and humor points in previous debates, she won or tied for first based on the overall debate performance, not one particular moment, statement or gesture.  

by georgep 2007-07-23 09:34PM | 0 recs
No, I Don't Actually Subscribe to That

No, no George.  At the start of this thread, I was actually making fun of this particular way of deciding who "won."  

I was just noticing that after the DC debate, some Hillary Clinton supporters were making the argument that she won that debate because she had the most applause after a single question.  When you considered overall performance and audience reception, I thought Edwards won the DC debate..  

So...I thought I would remind them that under their test, Biden would be the winner tonight. I find the "single question/response/applause" way of determining winners to be very superficial and vaccuous (though arguably traditional)...and said so at the time.  

Tonight's debate, I think, was all over the map with so many strange (almost racist and sexist) questions, attacks and peculiar moments, that I do not think there was a clear winner.  Partisans and the predisposed, of course, are going to claim their candidate won, but I just did not see it.  Everyone got attacked and embarrassed, and everyone made mistakes, including Hillary Clinton.

Somewhat sadly I guess, I would have to say that one candidate, Richardson perhaps lost the debate.  I know that is harsh, but he has actually failed to perform well in every single debate.  Surprisingly, Biden really laid into Richardson tonight.  IMHO, Richardson should have demanded more time to respond because those attacks were forceful and sustained.  Tonight showed us Biden v. Richardson.  Who would have thunk it?

by Demo37 2007-07-23 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Comment With the Most Applause

According to the CNN NH focus group Biden came in second to Obama for this debate. I think the credibility of this focus group speaks for itself.

by DoIT 2007-07-24 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD Blog Talk Radio Debate Wrap Up Show/Post

Also I just saw her response again. She explictly says she has a hard time seeing nuclear power being apart of our future with the waste and the cost but shes open to researching a way to fix those issues

by world dictator 2007-07-23 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDDWrap Up Show/Post Debate Thread

She did give a very extensive answer on the nuclear issue.  She said she was agnostic on the nuclear issue at the moment, but agreed with Edwards that it was problematic to include it in the short term unless we found a way to deal with the cost and the waste.  She said she wasn't ruling it out because she thought this was where American ingenuity could come in to play as far as creating technology that made nuclear fuel feasible. Her emphasis or focus on the issue of fuel consumption seems to be providing funding for research and development of alternative fuels.  I stayed up to watch the first hour I missed earlier (still on Oregon time after 2 weeks vacation) and I think all of the candidates seemed more relaxed and prepared, well except for Gravel, he just seemed cranky.  

by Kingstongirl 2007-07-23 09:08PM | 0 recs
A few thoughts on the debate

1) I am really tired of the 60 second answer format that doesn't allow the top candidates to address the major issues. A perfect example: the only question Clinton got about global warming was the nuke question and 60 seconds is not long enough to cover any ground. It is past time to cull the joke candidates from these debates. Ask fewer questions and provide an opportunity for the serious candidates to stretch their legs a little bit. Let's get serious. The candidates are MUCH more comprehensive in their town hall forums.

2) Gravel and Kucinich have to go. I am so sick of them spending two hours trashing the Democratic party.

3) Just as the Republicans do themselves irreparable harm throwing red meat to the fringe (Latino bashing, evolution bashing, more torture, etc.), some of the Democratic candidates do the party irreparable harm with their constant anti-business harangues. I wish the candidates would think a little harder about positioning the party for the general election. Thank god nobody watches these debates because, as a whole, the debaters reinforce the stereotypes about the Democrats.

4) Hillary's YouTube ad was a real YouTube ad, the winner of a contest she's been running.

5) CNN's on-air talent is excrutiatingly weak.

by hwc 2007-07-23 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: A few thoughts on the debate

I don't think that anybody should be cut from the debates, but I totally agree that the candidates need more time to be able to give more substantive answers. Let's put them in smaller groups, which will rotate each debate.

by clarkent 2007-07-24 03:20AM | 0 recs
Biden Gets It, Hillary also Looks Strong

Andrew Chulock
www.NonPartisans.Org

Biden Gets It, Hillary also Looks Strong

The You Tube Debate as this will forever be known, is historic, even revolutionary. But will anything really change?

This much is certain, the way in which debates like this are presented has changed, and it is a welcome one. The chance for people to submit their questions through You Tube is a positive step toward more involovement directly by the people, but it is noteworthy in that it widens the gap between the technolgically abled have and have nots: is an inner city or poor rural farmer able to have the same chance as a suburbanite or tech savy geek to ask a question, and more importantly, will the questions be skewed toward issues that concern the haves at the expense of ignoring issues that concern the have nots?

Refreshingly, the answer to the second question appears to be no. There were questions about universal health care and and answers concerning better schools for poor people in South Carolina by Senator Edwards. This was, after all, a Democratic debate. But one wonders what the questions would be by people that don't have two nickels to scrape together. There appeared to be no welfare mothers or homeless people asking any questions. Maybe an effort can be made in future debates to go out to the community with video crews to ask poor folks questions rather than rely on people with their own video devices to ask questions.

Debate Review: How the candidates looked
Senator Clinton looked polished, refreshed, composed, and professional. Senator Edwards looked well groomed, honest, and seemed genuine in his answers, Senator Biden looked experienced, capable, presidential, and fired up. Senator Kucinich was certain in his answers, yet his appearance and stature make him a long shot. He does, however, speak with conviction and does not dance around answers. Senator Dodd looks like a good running mate for a younger candidate, like possibly an Edwards-Dodd ticket (Or Bush-Cheney for that matter). Senator Obama looked tall, composed and speaks with conviction as well. Governor Richardson looked confident, experienced, well informed, and capable. No one made any major gaffes. The other candidates not mentioned here did not make a major impression on me. The format did not allow for that much confrontation between the candidates. In fact it looked like a 60's love-in or a comedy fest at the end of the debate. Refreshing for politics these days, though I doubt that will happen when the respective nominees from each party debate.

Why I Liked Joe Biden the Best in this Debate
Senator Biden is the only candidate from either party that has put Darfur on the front burner, even advocating the use of U.S. ground forces in Iraq. Senator Clinton, when pressed on the issue, is for U.N. and African Union troops but not U.S. troops on the ground. This is a cop out, and is a position she and many others have had for years, but this position has been taken at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Sudanse in Darfur being killed in a genocide much like the way Jews were systematically killed in Europe during World War II when the world did nothing until they were directly engaged in war with Germany. Senator Biden gets that, all the others don't.

Senator Biden is also realistic about the fallacy of pulling out U.S. troops from Iraq. He states correctly that a U.S pullout would take a full year from the time any pullout would begin, and hinted that the other candidates were pandering to the Democratic base when any of them say they want troops out now. For my article on why we cannot pull out of Iraq now click here.

Senator Biden lags far behind the other candidates in the polls, but somehow the cream always rises to the top. He would have to be paired with a geographically correct running mate to have shot at winning the general election, but as far as experience, which counts a lot when Senators Clinton and Obama have only eight years combined in the Senate, knowledge of the issues, demeanor, and a moderate stance on Iraq and on other issues, he is the best choice the Democrats have.

Hillary Clinton lost me on the flag burning issue a couple years back. In an effort to move toward the center by pandering to the right, she sponsored a flag burning amendment in the Senate. If you want to burn the First Amendment to protect burning the flag, to me that is not an acceptable concession to the right.

Senator Obama would have a better chance at winning the general election simply by having an (R) next to his name instead of a (D). His answer on why Civil Unions is equal under the law to marriage smacks of separate but equal and the ghost of that Jim Crow law seems to stand on his shoulder when he tries to explain his stance on Civil Unions.

Senator Richardson is extremely intelligent and would probably make a great President. Coming from New Mexico, a state with miniscule electoral votes, doesn't help him much.

Senator Edwards would seem to be a viable candidate, being from the crucial South, and says a lot of good things, but he could not even carry his home state of North Carolina for Kerry in the last election.

Next review: The Republican Debate

Nonpartisans.Org is sponsored by FloridaUSA.Com and www.Darfur.cc

by Andrew Chulock 2007-07-24 03:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Biden Gets It, Hillary also Looks Strong

You already posted this as a diary.

by clarkent 2007-07-24 11:57AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads