by mikes101, Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM EDT
I feel like this issue is often ignored and not something that Dems bring up to the national audience because being "pro-city" is seen as being "anti-rural". But I think most Democrats should be proud of Obama's record and plans to promote sensible development and investment in urban regions.
Any voter who lives in a metropolitan area should want better roads, trains, ports, and other metro initiatives to be funded.
I would highly recommend reading ALL of Neal Peirce's latest column Who's better for cities?
But do we have even a hint of a federal partnership with urban/metro America under a McCain administration? So far no. The silence could be intentional. The Sarah Palin vice presidential selection, the Republican National Convention's celebration of small towns and invective against "cosmopolitanism" and community organizing, smacks of a calculated anti-urban message.
A big McCain question is whether, if elected, he'd govern with serious domestic purpose... Or would McCain be more like George W. Bush, filling his administration (especially urban policy posts) with ideologues and mediocrities?
If you need an example - Mary Peters, the current Transportation Secretary, is just such an ideologue, who has done nothing to promote sensible highway, subway, and other transit investment. The federal government currently impedes the development of better transportation for our metropolitan areas.
It's true, Obama doesn't campaign much on his city-metro agenda. But he committed himself clearly in June before the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Noting "crumbling roads and bridges, aging water and sewer pipes, faltering electrical grids," Obama endorsed a new national infrastructure bank, seeded with $60 billion in federal funds over 10 years, to move road, bridge, airport, rail and other metro area projects forward.
There's a touch of historic Democratic generosity toward cities in Obama's promises. His list is long -- for example restoring federal funds for community-oriented policing programs, full funding of Sec. 8 housing vouchers, full funding of community development block grants, increasing the minimum wage, broadband in all schools and more.
A win for Obama is an investment in bread and butter issues like better transportation, electrical grids, and sewers. A McCain victory likely means more of our money in Iraq, more massive power outages, more traffic delays (and / or more toll roads owned by the Chinese), and more bridges falling into rivers! Surely this is an area in which even independents or right-leaning voters in cities would favor Obama!
by mikes101, Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:19:55 AM EDT
Maybe this is why Howard Dean wants Super Delegates to endorse yesterday?
In Thursday night's interviewing, Clinton received a greater share of national Democratic support than Obama, the first time she has done so in an individual night's interviewing since April 3. That stronger showing for Clinton helped to snap Obama's streak of statistically significant leads in the three-day rolling averages Gallup reports each day. Until today, he had led Clinton by a statistically significant margin in each of the prior 11 Gallup releases.
The full impact of the debate -- and the ensuing media coverage of it -- will be apparent in the coming days, and it will soon be clear if the debate has produced a shift back to a more competitive race, or if Clinton may have received just a temporary boost in support.
by mikes101, Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EDT
The economy is shaky at best. This may become the most important issue in the GE.
I have my own reasons for thinking that Hillary and the Clinton name are to be most trusted in terms of economic leadership - I give them some credit for some of the success of the 1990's. But I want to know - what do you think, and why? Which candidate do you think will be strongest in the General Election on the issue of economic leadership?
For those of you that think Obama is best, why should Obama garner any more trust than Clinton on this critical issue?
For those that would say Clinton is best, why do you think that in general polling, Clinton does not have an edge over Obama on the issue of the economy? How could she make this a larger issue to voters in places like North Carolina and superdelegates?
For those that might lean towards McCain on the economic side (while still being socially liberal, for instance), what is it specifically that you dislike about Obama or Clinton's economic policies? Is it intevention in the subprime mess, or bigger things like national healthcare that you oppose? Or do you perceive some dishonesty about what Obama / Clinton are saying about free trade agreeements? Would you actually vote for McCain because of this?
by mikes101, Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:08:10 PM EST
I am cancelling my Newsweek subscription based on Jonathan Alter's last 2 comments:
1) Today, about delegate math that somehow "won't add up" for Clinton if everyone buys the argument that if Obama wins by 1 pledged delegate, then all super delegates must go his way
2) His call last week that Clinton should drop out
Let's all cancel our subscriptions! Switch to Time! This guy is a joke.