OT: 2008 Elections

[pk500]

She really promised 200k jobs? And you guys believed a Senator would deliver that? I can see a governor offering tax incentives to bring businesses to the state but there would have to be a lot of deals like that.

Yes, she did. And no, we're not that naive. But we did expect her to fulfill at least some promise of helping the upstate economy, which hasn't happened.

How is she going to promise such things when she was going to be a rookie Senator in the minority party of the Senate and House?

All of that vast experience as First Lady, I guess.

What kind of a high-tech sector is there upstate? Usually high-tech corridors cluster around universities with strong science and engineering programs. You can't just will them into existence and you can't create them from scratch within a Senate term.

Very few high-tech sectors upstate, another one of her failed promises.

If she was selling such unattainable goals, her winning the Senate seat, especially as a carpet-bagger, must not have been too automatic as you suggest.

It was pretty automatic, mainly due to her last name and her weak competition. She also benefited in 2006 from the backlash against Congressional Republicans due to the unpopular Bush Administration.

Also, upstate concerns never have made or broken a candidate, since nearly all candidates for major political positions in New York (governor, U.S. Senate) are from downstate, where the political power, machinery and most importantly, money, reside.

The prevailing opinion among most of the anti-Hillary camp upstate, of which I am clearly a member, is that her most highly visible Senate work and committee appointments did little to help upstate N.Y. but did a lot to enhance her viability as a Presidential candidate.

She has served or is serving on the Budget, Armed Services, Environment, Health/Education, Labor and Pensions, Aging and Security in Europe committees. If you look at that participation as a whole, it ticks nearly all of the boxes a Presidential candidate from the Senate uses to defend their experience against attacks from rival candidates.

Add Hillary's voice: "Due to my work on the (Fill in Blank) Committee, I have worked for a balanced Federal budget. I have supported and worked on military issues. I'm keenly tuned into the health care and education crises in this country. I'm a strong supporter of organized labor. I'm working hard to preserve Social Security. I understand how a secure Europe can be a barrier against terrorism here at home."

Pretty clever. Pretty contrived. Very Clintonesque.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

No doubt she was using that Senate seat as a stepping stone and polishing up her resume for this campaign.

There are few Senators who don't have higher ambitions. They come into the Senate already rich so their view of public service is something to stroke their egos.

What stops lifers like Dodd and Biden is that they don't have a high enough national profile to draw votes. But they raise pretty good amount of money from big businesses because when they drop from the campaign, they go back to their powerful Senate chairmanships.

I wouldn't be surprised if she lost this election and then doesn't run for re-election in her Senate seat, unless she thinks she can run for the presidency again.

Maybe she runs for governor.

There are no candidates running for any cause other than themselves. McCain in 2000 was running against the establishment and how campaigns were financed. But in 2004, he kissed up to the establishment and in 2008, he tried early on to get the blessing of the establishment, didn't get far but now it seems to be coming around to support him.

[Brando70]

I did not use that word demean a whole gender. It was my description of the b*tch in question.

I'm stuck in in an interminable online legal seminar today, just miserable. But this made my day

That said, the C word does qualify as the nuclear option of anti-female vocabulary.

Even though I was the one who brought up the original point, JD's response made me laugh too.

[Brando70]

McCain in 2000 was running against the establishment and how campaigns were financed. But in 2004, he kissed up to the establishment and in 2008, he tried early on to get the blessing of the establishment, didn't get far but now it seems to be coming around to support him.

Oh yeah. People talk about Kerry flip flopping, but McCain has definitely done a lot of things in the last eight years that Straight Talk McCain would have criticized. He's been rejuvenated in this campaign by being more like the McCain of old, but there's a lot of material to use against him.

While he's too conservative for me to vote for, I would definitely feel much better with him as president than Romney. And, of course, Bush.

It will be something to hear complete sentences from the president again. In that respect, we'll all be winners in 2008

[pk500]

Maybe she runs for governor.

Please, NO!

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

I did not use that word demean a whole gender. It was my description of the b*tch in question.

How about this?

V ery Phoney
A lways lying
G o home to Bill
I rritating Voice
N ot Into Men
A nnoying

Won't work for man. I love vagina.

[JRod]

There's the old adage that every Senate has plans or wants to be president.

But it's a very cushy and is the second most elite job in the US government. The first obviously being located at 1600 Pennsylvania. I think that's why a lot of them will be lifers. They are good Senators but can't get the national profile to run for President.

[pigpen81]

Sorry Brando....hardly the same thing IMO....although I am sure the NOW would disagree.

If you're in a bar, and someone calls your wife/girlfriend/sister a c***, how do you react? Laugh and say "ha ha, good one"? Or get pissed?

It's a hardcore slur against women.

Exactly. It's the A-bomb of female slurs. I don't shy away from criticizing women or even being insulting about one I don't like. It's just that word is particularly offensive.

The c-word is just like the n-word in that it's not just a putdown, it's designed to put a group in their place. One could find dick or cock offensive, but they don't serve that same purpose. That's the difference to me.

Fair enough Brando...I see your point.

[XXXIV]

I can see how people would vote for Hillary.

Same reason they voted for Bush.

People are f***in idiots.

[F308GTB]

If you're in a bar, and someone calls your wife/girlfriend/sister a c***, how do you react? Laugh and say "ha ha, good one"? Or get pissed?

It's a hardcore slur against women.

Exactly. It's the A-bomb of female slurs. I don't shy away from criticizing women or even being insulting about one I don't like. It's just that word is particularly offensive.

The c-word is just like the n-word in that it's not just a putdown, it's designed to put a group in their place. One could find dick or cock offensive, but they don't serve that same purpose. That's the difference to me.

Fair enough Brando...I see your point.

Once I was joking around with my wife and used the "c" word. Man did I get a stare down and lecture. No booty that night I tell you.

[F308GTB]

That one-on-one debate showed just how polished Clinton is. She's really on the ball. Where Obama talks in generalities and ideals, Clinton was coming with more detail and experience. Obama may have the desire, but frankly Clinton is WAY more experienced. You simply can't discount 8 years in the White House, even as spouse to the President, when it comes to experience. I bet there was plenty of pillow talk (when old Bill was allowed in bed) about national and international policy.

Both candidates, however, promised too much. Their health care plans? Pie in the sky dreams in my opinion.

Clinton had a great plan for immigration, but honestly with the rules she set out I doubt there would be many takers - illegals should pay back taxes before they could even think of being legal.

[webdanzer]

That one-on-one debate showed just how polished Clinton is. She's really on the ball. Where Obama talks in generalities and ideals, Clinton was coming with more detail and experience.

I'd say you're half right on this. It seemed obvious to me that Clinton's answers were far more substantive than Obama's -the detail and experience that you mentioned- but the 'polish' I think went to Obama. Clinton's answers sometimes tended to ramble a bit (sometimes diluting the strength of her details) where Obama stayed more on focus. Obama scored more talking point zingers, I thought, and Clinton seemed rattled at a couple of times. And those forced laughs...yeesh. The questioning was also easier for Obama.

Often people judge these debate by not what was said but by how it was said. I thought Clinton won on 'what' while Obama won on 'how'. This actually illustrates the problems folks have with these two: people want to listen to and believe and follow Obama, but there are doubts about whether he actually knows where to go or what it will take to get us there. Clinton seems to know more about the latter, but people question her ability to lead the country out of the Washington status-quo.

[pk500]

Often people judge these debate by not what was said but by how it was said. I thought Clinton won on 'what' while Obama won on 'how'. This actually illustrates the problems folks have with these two: people want to listen to and believe and follow Obama, but there are doubts about whether he actually knows where to go or what it will take to get us there. Clinton seems to know more about the latter, but people question her ability to lead the country out of the Washington status-quo.

And that's exactly why the GOP is sitting in the proverbial catbird seat, at least this spring.

The Republicans will have their nominee next Tuesday; the Democrats will not. So McCain will be able to project his message to America without the clutter of a snipping party rival, giving him a clarity that the Democrats are losing by the day. McCain will be THE man for the GOP, traveling across America and making his case with no white noise. He'll also have a unified front from the party machine, even if some hardcore conservatives have misgivings about his positions on social issues behind the scenes.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama will descend to the dirty politics of last week -- don't be fooled by last night's detente -- in desperate measures to get the nomination. They will look less and less presidential by the day, giving McCain an edge in perception with the American public.

And as Web said, perception is everything in politics. The GOP must be loving this.

Finally, what will Hillary use as a wedge issue against McCain if she's the nominee? She can't use the experience card that she's playing against McCain; he crushes her in that area. She can't use the "he's a Washington lifer; we need a change" card. She lived in the White House for eight years -- how much more inside than that can you get?

McCain will destroy her in areas of foreign policy and the war. Hillary's only edge is health care and domestic issues, and as F308 said, it's easy for candidates to make pie-in-the-sky pledges on those issues to woo voters. The Dems and GOP will both devise unrealistic plans and sell them to the gullible American public.

So, if the "wedge issue" with swing voters is experience, McCain has a decided edge over Hillary.

Take care,
PK

[Slumberland]

The Republicans will have their nominee next Tuesday; the Democrats will not. So McCain will be able to project his message to America without the clutter of a snipping party rival, giving him a clarity that the Democrats are losing by the day. McCain will be THE man for the GOP, traveling across America and making his case with no white noise. He'll also have a unified front from the party machine, even if some hardcore conservatives have misgivings about his positions on social issues behind the scenes.

Given the media's preference for horserace over policy, McCain might not be able to break through the din of Obama/Clinton, for as long as the latter lasts.

[pk500]

Given the media's preference for horserace over policy, McCain might not be able to break through the din of Obama/Clinton, for as long as the latter lasts.

True. But if that Obama/Clinton din returns to nastiness and lasts a while, swing voters will pick up on it and be turned off. All McCain needs to do is look presidential and in control while on the stump, and he'll benefit.

I'm just really skeptical how long the Dem lovefest of last night can last.

Speaking of last night, I hope there's never a political debate in Hollywood ever again.

First, it was annoying as hell to hear the applause interrupting the candidates' every third sentence, as if this was some sort of self-masturbatory Hollywood awards show. Second, if I saw another cut shot of Bradley Whitford or Rob Reiner, I was going to play Elvis and blow out my TV with a revolver.

As the MSNBC.com political team said in its First Read blog, CNN did the Democrats no favors with its constant cutaways to celebrities in the audience. It only reinforced the Dems as the party of fantasyland, ultra left-wing Hollywood, which turns off a LOT of people.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

Often people judge these debate by not what was said but by how it was said. I thought Clinton won on 'what' while Obama won on 'how'. This actually illustrates the problems folks have with these two: people want to listen to and believe and follow Obama, but there are doubts about whether he actually knows where to go or what it will take to get us there. Clinton seems to know more about the latter, but people question her ability to lead the country out of the Washington status-quo.

And that's exactly why the GOP is sitting in the proverbial catbird seat, at least this spring.

First, I don't think that Clinton won on 'what' in the debate. Both gave detailed answers to questions about health care, immigration, etc. In fact, I think Obama clearly addressed the question about whether he will know what he's doing by contrasting his initial position on Iraq to Clinton's. He said something to the effect of Clinton may have the "experience" on day one, but that it's important to be right on day one.

As for the GOP being in the catbird seat...I really don't think that's the case. An extended Obama/Clinton campaign means they'll be in the media's eye all of the time...it'll probably be difficult for the Republican candidate to get much message out since the Democratic race will rule on the airwaves. Secondly, both Republican candidates are hurting for money whereas both Obama and Clinton are flush with cash...I don't see this changing in the general election as well.

Third, on the economy and domestic issues, Democrats will win. The Republicans have been fiscally irresponsible the last eight years, and Democrats can position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility simply by showing the budget during Republican control of the White House and congress. Furthermore, McCain will get nailed for flip-flopping on his position re: the Bush tax cuts. Universal health care (which is not pie-in-the-sky) is a popular issue with Americans now. Finally, Iraq is also unpopular with Americans. Finally, the public supports withdrawal from Iraq, which is the Democratic position. It'll be easier to make the case with Obama as a nominee instead of Clinton...but either way, their position is more popular than McCain's or Romney's.

The only chance for Republicans to be in the catbird seat is if Clinton is nominated and Republicans play on the (rational or irrational) hate of her that lots of voters have.

[kevinpars]

Well, Ann Coulter said she would support Clinton over McCain.

That pretty much seals it for me. I am going with McCain.

[JackB1]

I was very impressed with both candidates last night in the Dem. debate. Glad to see they both realized that the backstabbing and bickering wasn't doing either of the too much good (although I feel it hurt Hillary more) and the were very congenial towards each other.

Obama is trying to drive home the huge issue of not voting for the Iraq war and Hillary still won't admit she made a mistake. Also, Obama seemed more prepared on foreign affair issues and that was supposed to be Hillary's edge.
Their differences on Health Care aren't as big as they would make you think and I don't think either of them will happen, so that's a non-issue for me. The country is most focused right now on the economy and ending the war in Iraq, so they should both focus on those issues.

On a related note....Exxon just reported the highest profits EVER for a American company, while the rest of us struggle to afford gas to fill up our tanks.

[pk500]

On a related note....Exxon just reported the highest profits EVER for a American company, while the rest of us struggle to afford gas to fill up our tanks.

I'm not sure what's more shocking, Exxon's profits or that an analyst can be paid six figures for such profound statements as this from a CNN.com report:

"Exxon can put out some amazing numbers and this is one of those cases," said Jason Gammel, senior analyst at Macquarie Securities in New York.

Man, that's deep analysis. To be fair, I'm sure the guy had more to say, so the reporter is a bit of a dolt for using such a dopey quote.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Well being a policy wonk didn't help Gore.

And TV is really not the forum for disseminating policy issues in depth.

Obama just like any candidate will have access to the same advisers and think tanks that Hilary will have. In fact, a lot of his advisers are former Clinton admin. people.

Looks like his gameplan is to salvage what he can out of states like CA where he's way behind and then try to win as many smaller states as possible.

[johnvon314]

The only chance for Republicans to be in the catbird seat is if Clinton is nominated and Republicans play on the (rational or irrational) hate of her that lots of voters have.

The Clintons have historically been able to play that to their advantage by playing the victim card when the Republicans (or any critic) start laying it on too much. Just look to the New Hampshire primary for the latest example ("that hurts my feelings"/crying).

John

[pk500]

I didn't write the material you quoted above, John. But count me in the group that despises the Clintons, especially the breasted one.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

McCain is not going to have an easy time of it with the conservative base. There are a lot of conservatives who see him as pretty much a Democrat because of his bipartisanship and especially his stance on immigration. I really don't think you'll see voters turn out en masse just to vote against Clinton if she gets the nomination. In a lot of ways, that race would be a conservative mirror of 2000: many conservative Republican voters who already feel betrayed by Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and being "used" by his neocon handlers would probably either stay home or possibly vote third party if a conservative Nader-like figure emerges.

There are a lot of liberals disenchanted with the Clintons, but I think they are more motivated to turn out because they want a Democrat in the White House, and Clinton does support some of their causes very well (like health care).

[johnvon314]

I didn't write the material you quoted above, John. But count me in the group that despises the Clintons, especially the breasted one.

Take care,
PK

PK,

Ooops... sorry! Those nested quotes get me everytime!

John

[wco81]

There are a lot of liberals disenchanted with the Clintons, but I think they are more motivated to turn out because they want a Democrat in the White House, and Clinton does support some of their causes very well (like health care).

There's a looming crisis with the budget, if not by the end of next term, then the one after that.

Not sure winning the White House is such a prize.

Next president may end up being associated with some difficult fiscal decisions.