The Dem. Debate (10/30/07)

Discuss freely!

 

The questions thus far are horrible.

 

I'm happy with the with the Democratic field. Obama is finally starting to hit a few on the sweet spot in regards to HRC, but she's defending well. Edwards continues to come off as petty. Richardson sticking up for HRC a nice touch in effort to get a good cabinet appointment and well said.

 

It's a tough road -- Obama still needs to punch harder, Edwards needs to back off. You're right that he sounds petulant.

Richardson should just post his resume online and be done with it.

 

Edwards is a whiny little bitch

 

I hate it that he is, too.

If we voted for policy proposals only, he might get my vote. But he drives me crazy.

My hope is that when Biden drops out he takes a job debate prepping Obama.

 

First class! Markvid. I'd expect nothing less.

Zeke - 10/4 on Richardson. I agree 100%.

And finally, God bless Joe Biden for throwing a little water on the conflagration that Rudy Giuliani is actually qualified to be President of the United States.

 

Exactly. Being out of it can be liberating, and Biden has been good in every debate.

Last answer about swiftboating was a good one by Obama. He seems to be picking up steam. I think the moderators really want this to be a race, and they're giving him every chance to look good tonight.

Which is nice of them, since they have been painting him as losing ground heading into this. Of course, they rarely explain that even if he's losing ground in national polls, he's gaining ground in Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

And Zeke, I rooted for (and donated to) Obama for a long time, but it eventually became apparent to me that it's not just his style of campaigning, but also his core message that is missing the point. I really like the guy, so it pains me to admit he is not ready to take on the GOP in a presidential campaign. It's my opinion that because of his failure to articulate a winning message that they will swift-boat him and eat him alive.

Now, for example, he is essentially alleging that Hillary is operating in bad faith by saying she doesn't represent change from Bush-Cheney. I don’t know any Dem who thinks this is true. Politically motivated? Calculating? Wrong on a major issue? Yes. Yes. yes.

But evil? Or “Evil Light”…? C'mon

That's another way of saying that Democrats would just as soon stay home for the general election next year as vote for Hillary over any of the GOP frontrunners. Is that believable? No way in hell!

A better strategic approach for Obama would be to allege that Clinton is operating in good faith (and was doing so in 2002 when she voted for the war), but is simply WRONG on the critical issues of the day. Something like this:

“I proposed nuclear restraint, and Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani criticized me for it. They told me there are certain things you ‘just don’t say’ when you you’re running for president, and that I should take back what I said. (This is not the only time he has fallen under such criticism.) If this sounds all-to-familiar to you then you are not alone. Now I believe Sen. Clinton wants what’s best for this country. I believe she is a good Democrat. And I believe she would be a tremendous improvement over the current President. But is that the best we can get? I think we can do better! With all due respect, this is not the time for those who have shown a demonstrable lack of good judgment in important matters to who have tried to silence people speaking in opposition. It’s time for THEM to listen to those of us who exercised the proper judgment. It’s time for us to be in charge.”

If he misses the opportunities to hit Clinton where it hurts in the primary campaign, what reason is there to think he wouldn’t miss opportunities in a general election campaign, or as President of the United States for that matter? Compared to what the republican echo chamber has to offer, Hillary Clinton has handled him with kid gloves.

Compare his campaign to the way Clinton handles critics and you’ll see why the reality of a Clinton nomination is seeping in with a lot of us, and not looking like such a bad idea. She knows how to respond to attacks – political ones anyway.

His best argument is that he has better judgment than anyone in the field: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Ironically, his failure to make that argument indicates that his judgment is lacking. Instead, he argues that we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That Bush is bad (we agree) and that Clinton was just as bad (Dems don't agree). He'd also like to throw G.H.W.B into the same category with W. when he was clearly a much better prez. than his son.

His message is off. That's why he's losing. If he can change the message and demonstrate he can effectively take on republicans I'll jump on board.

 

Biden is such a good talker...loved the Guiliani line, 'Every sentence has three things, a noun, a verb, and 9/11...'

 

Short response to a long (and well thought out) post: I agree that he's off message. I don't think he's "losing".

 

Me, too. He's certainly the quickest on his feet.