DNC Winter Meetings

The first bit of news comes when, during Dean's introduction of the candidates, he refers to Clark as an "imminent" candidate... it's time for the candidates.

Chris Dodd: He's got about 50 sign holders --the Dodd Squad-- some mo-town music, "look out baby cause here I come" and here we go... into a scattered intro. Dodd is running a "up or out" campaign. He wants people to give him a chance, let his voice be heard. He moved all of his Senate funds into his presidential campaign, which he does by saying he intends not to run (although he can easily change his mind). To his credit, he worked hard for Lamont, but the liabilities of Dodd are immense. Most notably, he's got to overcome the electability of Democrats from the northeast and he voted for giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. That his first bill to congress would be to overturn the torture bill that was passed in 2006 is going to have some appeal. When Dodd said, "let me conclude", there were a few scattered claps by the partisans for other candidates.

Barack Obama: The College Democrats are in front of us, and about half of them standing up clapping during te introduction, but Obama has no signs, booths, stickers at the event. No intro music either (are they being unique by by being above that, don't have a theme song yet, or just a lack of . It's not so much that the words Obama uses in his speech are that different, but he's got a cadence and knows how to keep an auddience's attention. Obama says the rival is cynicism-- the staple of  modern politics. At least in the start, there's no red meat here. Instead, Obama talks about the need for a transformation to happen that puts an end to the cynicism. "There's no time to be cynical... belive again... aim high." Obama has a big-tent general election pitch going on, and is trying to mark out the context of the debate. He gains some energy when talking about Iraq, and a woman dressed in pink behind us here at the last row starts yelling "yea, you can do it!" about ending the war in Iraq. The Draft Obama people are persent, and passed out a phamphlet showcasing the 33rd state to start a Draft Obama chapter. I'd sum up the Obama presence at the DNC winter meetings by saying he's got a bipartisan message which relies upon a decentralized organization.

Wes Clark: The imminent candidacy of Clark is upon us. His intro song is "Stand my Ground" by Johnny Cash. Wesley Clark has his support on the netroots, and its fairly deep and established. His record of leadership is strong, and I'm sure he's going to be a much better candidate in 2007 than he was in 2003. I have this nagging feeling though, that he peaked in September, 2003, and has been fading downward in support ever since. But when I look at the guy speaking, he exudes leadership at a time of crisis. I'm glad that Clark is running for President, and hopefully he'll bring something to the table about "how to take us out of Iraq" that benefits the Democratic party. For him to win, he's gonna have to go into Iowa and hit the ground hard, otherwise, with a 6th or 7th place finish there, he'll again fade. He doesn't mention anything about running for President either.

John Edwards: He's got quite a presence here, with booths and about 75 sign holders in the rafters ("Tomorrow Begins Today"). The College Democrats in front of us seems less enthusiastic. His theme song is "This is our country" by John Couger (I'm old school). He starts off by giving tribute to Molly Ivins, noting Elizabeth's red ribbon and women's health isssues. The struggle of poverty, the struggle of the worker, the strugle of paying for education, and the struggle of those losing family in the military, the struggle of the uninsuredd, those are the next issues. Edwards does a "Will you stand up" and his backers start chanting. I saw Edwards speak many times in 2003, and his pitch now is much more centered on the issues, instead of a rhetorical framing of the issues. Edwards never intended to stop running once he began in 2002 with his candidacy. His transformation from his last, more traditional campaign (David Axelrod, who now does Obama, did Edwards media narrative), to a grassroots, issue-based campaign plays to the sweet spot of liberal Democrats actually voting in the primaries. After his speech, Edwards becomes the first candidate to go out into the crowd and mingle after his speech.

Dennis Kucinich: I lost all respect for Kucinich when told his Iowa supporters to caucus for Edwards the day before the caucus, and then went on to be contest the entire primary season. Kucinich lets you know he's married, and has mentioned his wife's name Elizabeth over a dozen times in his speech. Yea, he's mostly been right about Iraq, but this is a vanity candidate that doesn't deserve a second chance. At least he didn't segue into singing poetry like he did at the CA Democratic convention in '03. Next.

Hillary Clinton: Clinton's sticker that she's handing out (and there's booths and people walking around giving out signs and over 150 held up signs) is "I'm In To Win!" I guess it's meant to counter the electability issue, but it seems like a slogan whose time was before Democrats showed they could run the table in the '06 election, and her main contender was a guy who sizzled with electability named Mark Warner, and before Obama. "Right here right now" by Jesus Jones is the intro song. "I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm running for President." is the first thing she says. "This campaign that we are going to wage" is the smoke signs. "when I am president working with a democratic congress we will really take our country back" is the battle cry. Then she segues into the "conversation" part. The working mother is Clinton's target. Code Pink women are in the corner, silent with a fist up holding the peace sign, and from that corner comes heckles for "binding" when Hillary starts talking about about getting a Iraq non-binding resolution. Hillary says that if we don't stop this war by the time she is president, "I will". She's the frontrunner, she's got the organizational strength, and her candidacy is formidable. I'd sum it up by Hillary saying 'together, we will beat the Republicans into the ground'. This was a red meat speech for Democrats and this crowd loved it. I'm convinced more than ever (probably due to Mark Warner dropping out) that Hillary's candidacy has stronger machinery support than any of the others. At one point, I saw Harold Ickes squeeze up next to a DNC member in the aisle, grasping him at the shoulders, pulling him close, LBJ-like, the guy reluctantly starts to nod before getting the slap on the back, and it's onto the next one.



Display:


Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Really?  Really?  Really, Hillary used the Bob Rumson line from The American President?  I am sure other politicos have used it before, but after the movie... well they should just take it out of their vocabulary.

Of course I still remember watching the Macarena die during the Dem Convention in 1996 as people in their late 50's, 60's and 70's butchered the dance (although we all laughed our asses off).  Note to politicians... DON'T EVER DO THAT AGAIN!


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:31:01 PM EST

bob rumson (none / 0)

LOL, I hadn't even thought about the Bob Rumson line, but you're exactly right!


by Laurin from SC on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

I didn't expect this, but I think that Clinton's speech was the most unique, because she spent a lot of time defending the actions of Congressional Democrats. I mean, she dove into a detailed defense of the the Warner/Levin resolution which I thought was odd given the forum. I will say her delivery has improved greatly from years past. What I appreciate about her candidacy is that she is presenting the country with a template of strong female (potentially) executive political oratory and leadership, which is something I think we need to become more accustomed to.

I've decided on a nickname for Obama: the prophet.

Edwards really honed in on a narrative of economic struggle, and the duty of our party and nation to 'take action' and 'to help.'  If Obama was aiming at the prophetic, then Edwards sought to evoke the heroic.


by blueflorida on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:31:04 PM EST

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

It does seem like Obama posesses the speaking abilities and the cadence and ability to capture a crowd.  It also seems like his biggest thing he needs to improve upon is message.  I think he will get there though fairly quickly and by march or April will be firing on all cylinders... Going in, we knew Edwards had a big advantage in organization since he has been running since 2004 (and really 2002), but I am confident that this race will be extremely tight before Summer is over and we are in for a dog fight.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

I agree that Obama needs to ground his message more. Right now, he doesn't simply "give a speech", he instead offers existential revelations. You're right that once he finds a more comfortable (and, dare I say, slightly less "profound") rhythm, he'll really be something to watch. He decried the instinct of some to focus on and demand specifics and detailed plans, but if he can't find a way to become more comfortable dealing in specifics, he'll run into trouble down the line.


by blueflorida on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (3.00 / 2)

Funny thing, I think it will hurt him in the primaries where the audience for Dems is a more cerebral bunch who follows politics.. vs... the General where that sort of message works very well to those who don't educate themselves on politics... the uninformed masses... Speak too specifically and they glaze over... you have to srike the balance.  

I say this as a Supporter as well... I can at least critique my candidate's weaknesses... I think he will develop his message and will really hammer it home... Of course, he is a smart guy, so he may be withholding that specific message until Feb 10.  Win or Lose, I think his candidacy will be a big boon for all democrats in this primary.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:53:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Absolutely correct that Obama is a major asset for the Democratic party.  

As a presidential candidate, however... His message is one of bipartisanship, staying "above the fray," joining hands, working together with the Republicans, finding common ground.   That is a message that could well resonate in the general election, could bring in some Republican crossovers and Independents.  It is not that helpful for the more partisan primaries, IMHO.  


by georgep on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Obama's message is not so much to work together with Republlcans in their current form as it is to "join hands" with voters who are independent and to reach out to the subset of GOP voters who will listen.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, But... (3.00 / 1)

If he can't even be specific enough to make that clear, I think his problems are a bit more serious than his supporters realize.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, But... (none / 0)

Maybe you don't think its clear Paul, but others do.  I think the message is pretty clear in his latest book and most of his speeches on the subject.  But that of course is my opinion, just as him being unclear is yours.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look At His Response On Health Care (3.00 / 1)

Bush's health care proposal was an unmitigated disaster, but Obama praised him for it. That's the sort of high-profile action that serves to blur his meaning in terms of "joining hands" with GOP politicians vs. GOP citizens.

My problem is not just with Obama, however.  When he blurs the distinction this way, I have a problem with everyone who says he's not blurring it.  You folks just seem to be in denial of what's going on right in front of your faces.

I'm not saying that no GOP politician ever gets anything right, btw.  Quite the opposite--because they can get stuff right, there's no reason to be praising them for their bad ideas--such as Bush's health care abomination.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Over There (none / 0)

Well... he seemed to get his message across the Atlantic pretty clearly, did you see this piece titled Cornered Clinton in the Times?  It says she was heckled and he got a standing ovation, and all over the Iraq war too.  Hmmm.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:59:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, But... (none / 0)

Oh... and another splash for Obama in both the WaPo and NYT  morning editions.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:24:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Yes, Clinton's was unque. She played defense.

Her offense: I am a winner.

Her defense: don't blame me for my record or the non-record I will have in the Senate.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Notice the personal pronoun "I"

It is always all about Hillary, isn't it??


by adigal on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Is it just me or are the same batch of songs recycled among candidates every year?


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:31:47 PM EST

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

basically, although I was pleasantly surprised that there was no coldplay or u2 or elvis.


by blueflorida on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:33:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

I'd pledge my vote right now to any candidate who used , "America, f*** yeah!" from Team America.


by jhlinko on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Boy, If I were a long shot, I would do it...


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

mostly yes (none / 0)

Edwards has a new one street symphony that's pretty good.

musically and lyrically,

but many are recycled.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mostly yes (none / 0)

One Street Symphony... I thought he was using This is our country as his theme as Jerome said above?  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:39:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mostly yes (none / 0)

Edwards is using one of his favorite artists from last time, but the song "This is Our Country" came out in October, so it is not recycled and it is the newest.   Mellencamp's CD just came out last week with that tune.


by benny06 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:16:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mostly yes (none / 0)

Cool.  Thanks, not a big Mellencamp fan so I don't follow his music.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

So, will we be able to see video of the speeches at some point? I don't have CSPAN.


by Alikchi on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:44:36 PM EST

It's Online (none / 0)

I watched it here:

http://www.c-span.org/


by Arthurkc on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One good thing about a Hillary candidacy... (3.00 / 1)

My first choice is Clark, but I think any of Clark, Obama, Clinton or Edwards can beat any of the Republicans that look likely (with Huckabee being the most dangerous).  But one nice thing about Clinton as a candidate, is that a Hillary victory will completely crush the right.  Absolute, utter humiliation. Yes, it's true that she'll will motivate the GOP to get it together just one last time, but she should still win.  And when she does, the right wing will be forced to admit that the rest of the country doesn't think like they do.


by fwiffo on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:03:59 PM EST

Re: One good thing about a Hillary candidacy... (3.00 / 1)

I sorta disagree. I think Hillary is the least likely to bring about a fundamental GOP crushing. To me, the two most likely (for different reasons) are Obama and Richardson. Obama because, if he sharpens his issue stances enough to win, he will have a sharp message combined with the immense rhetorical skills to redefine the progressive image in America. The numbers on self-described "liberal" or "progressive" would probably go up immensely, which is a durable change. Plus, he'd probably cement the 20-30 year-old demographic's lean toward Democrats, an extremely important event.

Richardson for more technical reasons ... if he can sharpen his rhetoric enough to win the nomination, he can be a mapchanger, pulling the Mountain West and Southwest the final steps into the Democratic coalition, while fixing the Democratic Party's place among Hispanic voters. That's adding the fastest growing regions and demographics to the Democratic alliance ... the GOP wouldn't recover from that for years and years.

Clinton ... eh, more of the current trajectory. Which probably still leads to a Democratic majority for a while, but I think it's less certain.

But, as you said, all of these folks are very electable and would be favored against any from the weak field of Republicans.


by BriVT on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One good thing about a Hillary candidacy... (none / 0)

I think fwiffo meant crush them in terms of morale, which I agree with.  Unfortunately, if she's a lousy president or a one-termer, they can all rally around a big "I told you so."  

In a generic kind of way, I think that Hillary would be an OK president.  In the context of what this country needs right now, and who our other options are, I think she's a lousy choice.  


by spatne on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One good thing about a Hillary candidacy... (none / 0)

We certainly do with Bush the sequel.  Just like most sequels... Longer, costs more money and sucks very badly.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:22:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Call Me Old-Fashioned, But... (3.00 / 2)

I sorta tend to think that economic populism demolished the GOP for decades in 1932--Nixon was singing an economic populist tune when he ran for re-election 40 years later, for gosh sakes!--and has a much better track record than anything else in pounding the shit out of them.

I'm as wonky as the next guy (check out my recent harping on DW-Nominate as the best measure of legislative records), but the arguments for Richardson and Obama are too purely cerebral for me. IMHO, right now, we need polarization on our terms--and economic populism is far and away the most promising foundation for that.

So far, Edwards is the best standard-bearer for that. But I'm still months away from making any decision, at the earliest. I'm open to seeing other approaches emerge. Just because I've seen some that seem like sure losers, doesn't mean I've ruled out something more compelling coming along.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Call Me Old-Fashioned, But... (none / 0)

Your old Fashioned!!!!  Sorry couldn't resist

See I disagree about the polarization, but then that is one of the reasons I support Obama...  I think that a president can insist on Dem ideals and win them, without the bitter polarization.  He might have to be an asshole some times, but not act that way all the time the way W has.  

Personally, I think this difference of opinion is going to define the netroots support of candidates, with Obviously Obama, Edwards and Clark as the big 3... unless Gore enters, in which case he will suck up a majority of support from these 3 on the Netroots.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Polarization Doesn't Have To Be Bitter (3.00 / 1)

FDR's opponents were full of venom and bile. Heck, they plotted to mount a military coup. But he responded by welcoming their hatred. He didn't back away from the polarization, but neither did he get sidetracked into making it into a mere personal fued. He consistently made it about what it was--a difference in moral and economic governing philosophy.

Somehow, you've got it into your head that polarization means being like Bush. That's utter nonsense. He's a sociopath. Even conservative Republicans don't have to be like him, so there's no reason in the world that we have to.

The real divide here is between those who think that the main problem is polarization, and that you can triangulate your problems away, and those who think that the main problem is crackpot conservatism, which triangulation only serves to legitimize and empower.

Well, Bill Clinton aleady tried the triangulation route.  He was enoumously popular for it--60% approval ratings as he was being impeached.  But it didn't do a damn thing to put the Dems back into power, and rid us of the dominance of nutcase conservatism.  That's why the mere fact that Obama might be another Bill Clinton doesn't really do a thing for me.  That's why I want another FDR instead.

FDR gave us congressional majorities that lasted for decades. Bill Clinton lost them for us--for 14 long years. It should be a no-brainer which model is superior.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Polarization Doesn't Have To Be Bitter (none / 0)

"FDR gave us congressional majorities that lasted for decades. Bill Clinton lost them for us--for 14 long years. It should be a no-brainer which model is superior."

You are actually blaming Bill Clinton for the Democrats losing Congress?  In what way?  The "common wisdom" writes that it was because Bill Clinton started his presidency too liberal, pushing for universal health care, enacting the Family Leave Act, Brady Bill, EITC tax credit,  the "gays in the military" issue, the controversy surrounding "too liberal" surgeon general Joycelyn Elders, and so forth.  I rather believe that it had to do with a Congress in love with its' own power and beholden to and corrupted by money and special interests, just like this last Congress got crushed largely under the weight of its own slime and mud.    


by georgep on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The CW is ALWAYS Wrong (none / 0)

First off, it's "conventional wisdom." The phrase was cointed by John Kenneth Galbraith, JFK's Ambassador to India around the time he coined the term.  It was Kennedy's way to get one his most liberal (and far-sighted) advisors out of his hair--send him off to India.  Galbraith, in turn, saw quite clearly how the insular Beltway world functioned as a protective bubble, keeping folks inside it from learning anything from the world outside.  Hence the "conventional wisdom" that took the place of actual understanding.

Now, I'm not even sure how much what say really is the CW nowadays, but when he was elected, Clinton was praised for moving the Democrats to the center, and "making them relevant again."  This was clearly due to his DLC pedigree.  However, he ran a blatantly populist campaign that was far more liberal in tone than that of his more theoretically liberal predecessors, Mondale and Dukakis.  After getting elected, however, things quickly changed.  The middle-class tax cut became a middle-class tax increase.  (Wow!  The deficit turned out to be bigger than he expected!)  His populist economic advisors (such as Peter Drier) were not asked to join the administration, his neoliberal ones (Rubin) were.  The only liberal appointed to the cabinet was Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.  He stood by and watched while his old college friend Lani Guiner (appointed to the sub-cabinet post of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights) was defamed with lies and racial slurs, forbidding her to respond, and then joined in, repeating the lies and withdrawing her nomination.  I could go on and on about things Clinton did to weaken both his own Administration and the Democratic Party generally.

But why should I have to?  Just look at figures.  FDR swept into power with a majority that lasted until 1946, immediately after WWII, when the GOP swept into power with a nation yearning for a "return to normalcy."  Two years later, the Dems were back. Eisenhower got the GOP another 2 years of controlling the House, and that was it until two years after Clinton was elected. The Democrats decades-long post-1932 dominance of the House is completely unprecedented in US history, and it ended in the very first election after Clinton came into office.  Even though the GOP quickly produced disaster--the government shutdown in late 1995--and Clinton cruised to re-election in 1996, he had no coattails worth speaking of, and the GOP kept their hold on the House.  Even in 1998, when they went off the deep end with impeachment, they only lost a handful of seats.

In short, Clinton was totally ineffective in reversing the GOP's 1994 gains--unlike Truman in 1948, who not only won an election he was supposed to lose, but also drove out the "do-nothing Republican Congress" as he called them.


by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:39:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Call Me Old-Fashioned, But... (none / 0)

Could be. I'm sort of open to an argument about economic populism. I can see where Edwards could use that ... I'm more of the feeling that the big, broad sweep of demographics and geography are the true forces of change and durability in politics, though. But, I fully acknowledge the plausibility of your point.


by BriVT on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:27:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Demographics And Geography Expose Potential (none / 0)

But they don't actually do anything by themselves.

That's why the GOP is so heinous.  The Democrat's embrace of civil rights created a racist potential for the GOP in the South. They actively chose to exploit it. It didn't just fall into their lap.  And one election, or one politician was not enough to make it happen.  There had to be a sustained political reorientation.

Economic populism is the same sort of sustained political force. It takes advantage of opportunity, it doesn't just passively rely on it. And it's not reliant on one candidate to make it happen. There are plenty of economic populists in the party, but they've been relentlessly attacked by the DLC and its allies for the past 20-some years. Edwards is important as a force for changing the party's internal dynamics, not just for his own candidacy.

OTOH, I don't see Richardson doing anything comparable for cementing the West, or Latinos. He is basically an establishment Dem with a long resume. His identity as a Westerner and a Latino is totally secondary to who he is.

Even moreso, Obama seems to delight in shunning his roots--both racially (which is natural, since he's an immigrant child, not a native African-American child) and ideologically (he loves to tell progressives what they're doing wrong, rather than simply show them how to do better.)  These are the moves of someone particularly unsuited to building lasting change, almost in inverse proportion to his penchant for talking about it.

It's obvious, of course, that Obama has great gifts.  What's not so obvious is that he has any idea what do with them.  He's young, and has plenty of time to learn, though.  So nothing I'm saying here is meant to prejudge him for the future.  I'm talking specifically about what he's shown me to date, and how it relates to the political moment of this election.

Does that mean Edwards is the candidate for me?  Not necessarily.  Just because I see one thing that could work, and one person who could be instrumental in moving it forward doesn't mean that other paths aren't possible as well.  After all, his tough talk about Iran shows a real blind spot--one that often comes along with  econommic populism, unfortunately.  (Andrew Jackson, anyone?)

So my position is that of looking for the best long-term prospects of sweeping change, and how different candidates might catalyze them.  Right now, Edwards scores pretty high by that benchmark.  But "pretty high" is far from perfect.  And other possibilities could still emerge.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Demographics And Geography Expose Potential (none / 0)

I share your concern about Obama ... it's why I'm not inclined to support him right now. And that was the reason for my qualification about his need to sharpen his issues ... right now, the only thing he's doing with his gifts is promoting himself. But that won't be enough, imo ... but, if he can focus those talents, he's so popular with younger folks and such a rock star, he can scramble some ideological labels.

However, I don't share your views on Richardson. He has a long resume, but his politics are more Western than you indicate. His environmentalism has a Western cast to it, along the same lines as Schweitzer in Montana. Very "clean energy" focused, with the ability to cross over into the hunter types who are interested in open access to public lands. His social views are pretty libertarian, and his economics hold enough of the controlled-tax/good government mix to appeal to the Western psuedo-libertarian. I don't think he's going to have the ability to grab the West just because he happens to be there.

And, perhaps most importantly, he's got the experience and credibility to be the voice of a new foreign policy that can be offered as the opposition to the Bush Doctrine that the GOP will be saddled with.

What major demographics/areas does Edwards grab this time around with the economic populism that aren't ripe for the taking anyway (I consider Ohio ripe)? I'm not asking that to be snide, I'm truly asking ... I enjoy these types of discussions. And I see economic populism as the next generation of Democratic policy-makers, developed during the next Presidency ... sort of Democratic Majority v1.1 or 2.0.

btw, I'm still undecided, but as of now, Richardson and Edwards appeal to me the most ...


by BriVT on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll Answer In The Form Of A Vignette (none / 0)

A couple of weeks ago, Richardson was on a local political radio show, "Strategy Session," which is normally hosted by Antonio Gonzalez, Executive Director of the Willie C. Velasquez Institute, the think tank associated with the Southwest Voter Registration Project.  Antonio was off that week, but they had Richardson on, and asked him point blank, "What sets your candidacy apart?"  And he said, "Experience."  I heard virtually nothing about the environment, or the West, or even being Latino.

In short, while what you say may be true, I got nothing of passion about it from him--something you certainly can't say about Schweitzer.

And that's what you get from Edwards--passion.  It's not just about appealing to a demographic.  It's about bonding with them.  And if you bond with them, they aren't just with you for one election--they're in for the long haul.  And they will work for you and support you in a way that brings others along with them.

In short, it's about changing the structure of salient issues, and by doing that, changing the structure of the electoral battleground.

It also doesn't hurt that he's a Southerner.  But I would never support a candidate just because he's a Southerner.  I'm with Tom Schaller on that score.


by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll Answer In The Form Of A Vignette (none / 0)

Yeah, I've seen that problem with Richardson, as well. It's why I mentioned that he needed to sharpen his rhetoric. However, I think he has the potential with his background and philosophy to do it. But just talking about "experience" isn't going to get him very far. But if he doesn't change his rhetoric, he'll have little chance at the nomination, so the point would be moot, anyway.

With Edwards, I see his passion resonating most strongly with progressives and liberals. He may pick up some folks in the border states (VA mostly) and solidify the Industrial midwest and some of the Reagan Democrats, but these look like grabbing some extra folks on the margins, rather than a fundamental realignment.


by BriVT on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 07:04:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This, Too, Strikes Me As An Inside-Baseball POV (none / 0)

With Edwards, I see his passion resonating most strongly with progressives and liberals.
Economic populism has a whole lot of appeal to people who would never dream of calling themselves "liberals."  This sort of statement is part of the way that DLC types convince themselves that what Joe Sixpack really wants is free trade and most favored nation status for China.

There is some truth in this stament--but it applies only to the world of political activists and operatives. In world of voters at large, it is hopelessly provincial.

He may pick up some folks in the border states (VA mostly) and solidify the Industrial midwest and some of the Reagan Democrats, but these look like grabbing some extra folks on the margins, rather than a fundamental realignment.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis ran on "It's about competence, not ideology."  Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum pleaded with him repeatedly to run a strong economic populist campaign instead.  The sort of campaign that Metzenbaum himself was running.  Metzenbaum was a first-tier target for the GOP, who were convinced that Metzenbaum was far too liberal for Ohio.

When the dust had settled, Dukakis lost Ohio by 11 points. Metzenbaum won by 14.  That's a swing of 25 points.  And Ohio is the quintessential swing state for the last century.  That's a whole lot of swing potential.  So much that it dwarfs any kind of demographic shift you might want to talk about.  Hispanics could defect to the GOP en masse, but with a swing like that, we'd still win walking away.

Of course, Hispanics are not about to defect en masse.  They're part of that 25% swing potential, and it's what will help us get back to around 80% of their vote, rather than around 60%.


by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One good thing about a Hillary candidacy... (none / 0)

Wouldn't this also crush the left.  From what I've read here and other places, there is no love lost for Hillary in blogland.  I am for Clark, with positive vibes for his Hillary or Obama.  Edwards does nothing for me, but I will happily vote for the whomever is left standing at the end of Primary season.


by Kingstongirl on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In it to win it! (3.00 / 4)

I have to say, Hillary's buttons completely turn me off. As a voter/activist, I'm not concerned with who's "in to win." That's a completely narcissistic statement. Great, you're in it to win it ... and I can help you attain your ambition? Whoppee!

I want a politician to base a campaign around doing something for the country, not the country doing something for him or her. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for me! Because I'm in to win!"

I'm not exactly sure why this is irritating me so much, but ... grrrr.


by BriVT on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:05:36 PM EST

Re: In it to win it! (3.00 / 1)

I've been trying to articulate this view, but your post did it the best.  I may be borrowing some of your language--thanks!


by benny06 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (3.00 / 2)

Agreed. It's texbook awful marketing, so utterly self-involved.

My question, though, is this: which of the current candidates (plus Clark) can be trusted to play hardball with the Republicans? To try to undermine their infrastructure while reinforcing ours (unions and voting rights and  redistricting)? To mouth all the bipartisan platitudes the media loves, and then drive a stake through the heart of the conservative movement?


by BingoL on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

in today's speach (3.00 / 1)

Hillary said she could get bipartisan support to get things done so it didn't sound like she was trying to drive stakes through the gop


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: in today's speach (3.00 / 1)

That's my single biggest fear of Clinton. I'm not sure exactly how, but apparently the lesson she learned from being reviled and savaged by the right was that if only they knew her better--if she showed them  she sympathised with them on violent video games and flag burning--they'd treat her with more kindness an wisdom.

At least, that's how it looks to me. I'd support the Clinton of 1992 far more readily than the Clinton of 2007.


by BingoL on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:47:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: in today's speach (3.00 / 1)

Look at her record.  She has never demonstrated the guts to 'go to the mats' on anything.  Pressured hard enough, she caves.

This is exactly what we DON'T need in the post-Bush Head of State/Goverment.

(BTW, I'm neutral on the rest of the pack.)


by ATinNM on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:54:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (3.00 / 2)

I have no idea ... it's a good question, though. I'd say that Obama is least likely to be a bare-knuckle partisan. And all of the others ... eh, who knows? Clinton maybe; she's competitive and strong-willed enough, but her Senate experience didn't show me someone with that instinct. Richardson I think could be. Edwards ... I'm not sure why, but I could see him putting it to the GOP. Clark, I have no idea ... he almost surely has the stomach for it, but I'm not sure he'd have enough experience with the nitty-gritty of politics to know where to put the screws in.

Frankly, though, the next President will probably do less damage to the GOP than Chuck Schumer. Schumer ... now there's a guy that knows how to get nasty. And his new-found respect for the online activists makes me encouraged ...


by BriVT on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (none / 0)

See I disagree.  I think Obama is a fighter... just not in the conventional name calling way the GOP has mastered and some Dems have emulated.  The Fox News is a clue to it I think... He won't come out and name call, but he will fight back and get his point made.  He is more the rapier than the blunt club.  

I'm still suspious of Edwards fighting ability since the only times he has fought seem to be when it is with the side of public opinion... He was for the war when it was popular, he didn't come out heavily against it during the 2004 election like Dean when that sentiment was unpopular nationally, and didn't apologize for his vote until late 2005 when polls showed a majority opposing.  Even his call for defunding seems pretty easy since 1) most peopel are against escalation and 2) he doesn't have to vote on it.  He could prove me wrong, and my negative reaction of late has more to do with some of his supporters on MyDD than the man himself, which is unfair and I am trying to seperate those jackasses from Edwards... so I am trying to be openminded.

I think Clinton roles over.

Richardson I am not sure... same as Clark.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (none / 0)

The Fox News thing is a strong point in Obama's  favor. But Obama seems to be a consensus builder by temperament (see his Harvard Review days), rather than a tough-minded warrior.

Your points about Edwards are good, though ... I guess I'm a little swayed by his being so far out of the mainstream on economics issues. But, it's true that in the Senate he wasn't exactly a maverick.

Frankly, this is the problem with having a bunch of Senators ... it's hard to see how they'd react in an executive role. With Richardson, we'll be able to look at his record as Governor and get a decent sense of the type of President he'd be ...


by BriVT on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (3.00 / 1)

Self-involved is the perfect description. She also said that she would "resent" it if Bush did not end the war and left it to her(assuming she gets elected).

Poor baby!


by pdxmike on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (3.00 / 1)

If you really want fighter, then Clark's your man.  It one of the reasons he gets so much support out here in the netroots.

It's no accident that Clark's introductory song today was, I won't back down.  And the Johnny Cash version on purpose too.

Clark has never taken any crap from right-wingers and he's not about to start.  He called out Karl Rove in his tax plan speech, he pointedly addressed Tom DeLay several times about who supports which wars and what it really means to support the troops, and he sure as hell was never afraid to criticize, even mock ("prancing on the deck of an aircraft carrier") Bush by name.

Then there was the "beat the shit out of 'em" remark to another old vet, and when the Fox Noise makers tried to make something of it, his campaign released a statement that he had misspoke, and really meant, "beat the livin' shit of 'em."

But one of my favorite stories is from a magazine article back before Clark started his campaign in 2003.  Clark is about as non-partisan as it comes when it means what's good for the country.  But he undestands the way the other side is playing the game.  Maybe it's because he's negotiated with guys like Milosevic.  Guys like Gingrich, DeLay and Cheney aren't really all that different.  To me, it shows Clark gets it.

"Somebody once told me in business that when you're going to negotiate a business deal, you stake out (Clark slams the table) your position and stand on it! Don't go in there and ask what they want. Say, `Here's what I want!' (slams table again).

"You've got a Republican Party under Gingrich and Tom DeLay that says, `Here's what I want' (slams table again). "Then you've got the Democrats over here saying, `Yeah, ah, yeah, we could, some of what you say makes pretty good sense.

"The result is the American people don't see the full spectrum.  Before the 2002 election there were a lot of Democratic politicians apparently who said, `I don't have the information. I can't battle with the president on the information. He's got the intelligence. What if there is a smoking gun in there? I can't fight the president in my congressional district.'

"What we've got to do is stake (slams table again) out our position. For instance on tax reform, stop (slam) saying (slam) you agree with simplification of the tax code. . . . We stand (slam) for progressive taxation. We're proud of it. If you make more, you should pay more, period!"


by hf jai on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (none / 0)

I wonder how she paid to some advertising/marketing firm to come-up with that inane slogan.


by ATinNM on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (none / 0)

typo .. "how much"


by ATinNM on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In it to win it! (3.00 / 0)

It also sounds like an ad for the state Lotto.  Which is the Powerball State in '08?  I hear if you hit it you win double the EVs.  


by spatne on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

I'm sorry you "lost respect" for Kucinich because of his strategy in the 2004 Iowa caucus, but what he told his supporters to do was to assess whether they met the threshold to get delegates on their own. If they didn't, he instructed them to align with Edwards delegates. The dealmaking is part of the "fun" of caucuses, and actually it is similar to instant-runoff voting, since participants get to toss in with their second or third choices until they find enough allies to qualify for a delegate. But what Kucinich was doing was engaging in the process.


by jcullen on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:17:57 PM EST

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Yeah, and the agreement was entirely symmetric so if Jerome is at all consistent, he's lost all respect for Edwards as well.


by The Animal on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:28:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Jerome has respect for Edwards?


by adamterando on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Probably.  I don't follow what he says all that closely.  What have I missed?


by The Animal on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

He's made it pretty clear that he's less about ideology and more about strategy. He comes across as more in the Markos mold (although I have no idea what Kos thinks about Edwards) than in the Stoller or even Bowers mold.

He worked for Mark Warner's campaign which would have been a somewhat business Democrat-oriented campaign focusing on "bringing people together" rather than a campaign with a message of economic populism.

Jerome wrote
"Obama has a big-tent general election pitch going on, and is trying to mark out the context of the debate."

I think this sums up where Jerome feels the party should be going now.

And he described Edwards speech as moving from one issue to the next. He's wasn't overtly critical of Edwards, but it came across as grudging admiration of his campaign now. Jerome has also made it clear that he's none to fond of "single issue groups". Which while much criticism can be laid at their feet, sometimes this criticism leads to lumping together of single issue groups that often work at cross-currents with the progressive movement, to those that are at the heart of furthering a progressive movement (i.e. unions).

He comes across not so much as not liking Edwards, as that he's definitaley not his favorite.


by adamterando on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: clueless about jerome's mold (none / 0)

Yea, and before Mark Warner, I worked for Sherrod Brown and Howard Dean.... oh wait, that doesn't fit the script. Stop projecting foolish ideas.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: clueless about jerome's mold (none / 0)

It's just how you come across sometimes. Unintentional or not.


by adamterando on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

" This was a red meat speech for Democrats and this crowd loved"

Edwards and Obama were kind of ho-hum, and so was the reaction they got.  Maybe the wrong crowd for them?

Sounds to me what is going on with HRC's popularity has more to do with just her "organizational machine" or her husband.  She can excite the base with these "red meat" speeches.  


by georgep on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:19:45 PM EST

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Goerge, I was watching on CNN and ho-hum is just about the opposite of what I saw in response to Obama and Edwards. Were you watching, too?


by howieinseattle on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

I was watching.  So was apparently Jerome Armstrong.  Did you read his summary above?  


by georgep on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (3.00 / 1)

Edwards was ho-hum?

Are you freaking kidding me? Check out the hotline summaries.


by adamterando on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Credibility alert... (3.00 / 1)

george p lost his on aisle 4


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:44:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

I'm a delegate. The top three for audience response were Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. At least among the delegates. (The delegates sit separately up front; guests, press, and public at back.)

DNC members can be really rude sometimes. We see a LOT of political speeches, so people don't really react unless they think it's something special. For example, it didn't look like the delegates were even paying attention to Kucinich. Clark didn't stir much response either. (His speech was very low-key.)

When Obama spoke, you could have heard a pin drop. Everyone was paying attention, there were few whispers around me. I thought he was great and he struck an emotional chord.

Edwards really had the delegates going. His speech did get people on their feet, and I think he won the standing-o race. Again, he hit me emotionally.

Clinton gave a good speech, and she had a lot of supporters cheering in the room (save the Code Pink women), but it fell flat emotionally for me.

The other delegates I went to dinner with had similar reactions. None of them, including me, have made their minds up yet. I need to see a lot more of these folks before I'm ready to start working for one of them.

On the other hand, I'm pretty inspired by the lineup.


by Jenny Greenleaf on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Jenny, thanks for your report.


by Demo37 on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:34:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (3.00 / 1)

Are those slogans for real?  I can tell it's going to be an uphill battle already.


by vachon on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:35:50 PM EST

I can not believe Hillary is against (3.00 / 1)

universal health care, and says we only need to fix health care, how does she plan to do that?

She sounds like she is caving into HMO's, insurace companies and drug companies.

I am for Edwards - Universal Health care to include mental illnesses equally.

I don't think Obama's U-Heath care includes mental illnesses.  Too ofter the mentally ill are totally left out on the street, no one to care for them and no health care.

I will stay with John Edwards. His speech was far reaching, and covers the need of more american then either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:39:57 PM EST

Re: I can not believe Hillary is against (none / 0)

Edwards has not detailed his health care plan. It's "coming soon" (unless I missed something since seeing him at Wake Forest Monday).

Any actual evidence that Obama does not include mental illness?

I like both these guys. Just am not ready to accept stuff on faith.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

edwards did trash (none / 0)

"accessiblity" to health care and said that it isn't enough, it should be a right


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: edwards did trash (none / 0)

How is that a reply to my comment?


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can not believe Hillary is against (3.00 / 1)

I believe I have heard Edwards say that he was considering single-payer, and Obama say he wasn't.  No idea about parity for mental illness.  Thank god my state requires it!


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards is for Universal Health care, to include (3.00 / 1)

mental illness equally.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can not believe Hillary is against (none / 0)

Everything I had heard was Obama was for Single Payer... any source on Obama not supporting single payer?  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you can find Obama including mental illness (none / 0)

let me know where you find it please.

I only remember him recently agreeing on Universal health care, but I don't know of any source that says he is for including mental illness equally it in it.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you can find Obama including mental illness (none / 0)

My guess is that while it may not be spelled out in the brief amount of time he has talked about it, he would include it... He may not be saying it as just naturally assuming it would be in there.  I think the better thing to find is that he WOULDN'T support mental health being in there.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can not believe Hillary is against (none / 0)

If Obama had taken the 7 extra minutes of overtime Edwards did maybe he would have covered more issues, too. :-)


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can not believe Hillary is against (none / 0)

I can hear the tiny fiddle playing right now.


by adamterando on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

JESUS JONES?!? (3.00 / 1)

Good Lord, deliver us from this crap-tacular music.

Always count on the Clintons to pick the lamest music for their rallies. Almost as bad as that stupid Fleetwood Mac song in 1992.


by Schadelmann on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:53:20 PM EST

Like any of the candidates? Donate through ActBlue (3.00 / 1)

The great thing about the DNC meeting and the mix of candidates who are official or maybe not quite yet, is that you can donate to all of them regardless of status through ActBlue- right now, today!

For those that may want to encourage Clark to run, contribute to the Draft Clark page. If he runs, all the money gets transferred to his account, if he chooses not to run, then your donation gets transferred to Howard Dean's DNC for 2008. It's win-win if you are a supporter.

Below are other pages for 2008 candidates and Draft Funds.

Wes Clark Draft Fund
Al Gore Draft Fund
Barak Obama
Bill Richardson
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Tom Vilsack
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Hillary Clinton
Mike Gravel

And for the old Deaniacs out there we even have the Howard Dean Draft Fund.


Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:54:53 PM EST

Barack, not Barak (3.00 / 1)

No slight intended. =)


by KTatActBlue on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

old deaniacs? (none / 0)

.... Who you callin old?!? lol


by davewolfusa on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

'John Cougar' Is Corporate, Not Old School (none / 0)

It was a name forced on him by his record company.  He hated it.

It we're all about transformation, people-power, and folks having the power to define things for themselves, you can't get much more basic than calling someone by their chosen name.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:15:42 PM EST

p.s. (none / 0)

But Harold Ickes mistaking himself for LBJ was even worse!


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So what about Bill Richardson? (none / 0)

Hmmmm.......

Looks like east coast bias to me - one wonders if it is possible for a candidate to come out of the West?

Bill Richardson would be a GREAT CANDIDATE!

- he's not tarred by the war
- he knows how to run an election and likes winning
- he has all the creds you could want
- he's been a successful Gov and actually run things not just sat in the Senate and preached
- he not as devisive as HRH Hillary
- he's actually won real, hard faught races and didn't stumble into a seat when his opponent self-imploded like Obama
- he's hispanic and can speak real Spanish

But since he's not in Washington no one thinks he's real - guesss its a Dem disease.  The Publicans know better - watch their next candidate won't be a Washington star.  In Presidental races Gov's always beat Senators.  Its  just a fact of life.


by mwfolsom on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:57:37 PM EST

Re: So what about Bill Richardson? (none / 0)

Know what the hell you are talking about before making a stupid remark like that.  

Obama did not stumble into a seat... Don't make idiotic claims like that.  He led in the polling out of the primaries and carried over 50% of the vote in the Primaries in a Blue state.  Yes, his path was made easier after Ryan's "scandal".  But he did not stumble into the seat.  His appeal was not just in the city but reached into the burbs as well across all sexes and races.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So what about Bill Richardson? (none / 0)

And I don't think anyone on here ever said Richardson would be a bad candidate.  I like the guy a lot, I just don't think he has the IT factor that Obama and Edwards have right now nor the money and lackies that HRC  has.  He may sneak up sure, I just don't think it will happen and the candidate comes from one of the big 3 unless Gore gets in, in which case all but the big 3 might as well drop out.  

I have said all along, Richardson would be me top choice for VP for Edwards or Obama.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:51:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So what about Bill Richardson? (none / 0)

No, you can forget that -

Why would he want to be a second fiddle to Edwards or Obama?  Anyway, neither of 'em is gonna make it - Hillary will knock out Edwards early and Obama is a lightweight.

Either Richardson is the nominee or he'll just stay Governor and wait for the next cycle.


by mwfolsom on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (3.00 / 1)

Antiwar republican Hagel would beat prowar Hilliary.  The gop primaries may make this impossible, but if he did overcome that obstacle he would have support among the antiwar left and many independents.   Yes the war is that important.

I liked Edwards until his "all options on the table" pander to the Israelis.  Go Clark and Richardson.


by syvanen on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:57:43 PM EST

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

As a Clark partisan & as someone who was in the room I thought Jerome's post was...dare I say...fair & balanced.  There is a reason the current frontrunners are the frontrunners.  Organization really matters at events like the DNC meetings.


by howardpark on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:02:23 PM EST

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Bill Richardson would be a great Secreatry of State and a VP. However none of the second teir candidates will have the money to break past the Big three or Big Two- Clinton and Obama. Nothing newsworthy from any of the speeches.


by bsavage on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:14:53 PM EST

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

As an Obama supporter... Its the Big 3... Edwards is in this as much as the other two are.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

I live in Pennsylvania so I don't care. By the time our primary happens it won't matter


by orin76 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:25:10 PM EST

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Don't you hate that... I hope they move Illinois up (even though I am betting it won't matter) just to feel like part of the process... 2004 pissed me off.  I voted for Edwards in the primaries since Clark wasn't on the ballot, just to be contrarian to the front runner.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:56:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Wasn't that an awful feeling that the decision was made and Illinois would make no difference! I felt badly for my family who live in North Carolina, where the primary was even later than ours.


by Books Alive on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:43:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

It was like this in 2004 too. We haven't been relievent in a primary since 1984


by orin76 on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:01:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Winter Meetings (none / 0)

Sorry, posted my comment in the wrong place, meant to reply to fwiffo's comment.


by Kingstongirl on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:51:19 PM EST

Very Interesting Speeches (none / 0)

I finally got to see the speeches, and I must say, I was very surprised by the real contrasts in styles and presentations.  

I have seen Clark give some decent speeches lately, and I like him as a candidate in certain respects. But, in this setting, in front of this particular audience, his constant emphasis on deaths, the military, solidiers, building war monuments, and a General Douglas McCarthur quote (?), well, it just seemed surprising to me.  I almost think he should have given the "Nevada speech" he recently gave.  Clark's speech was a very quirky speech for this particular audience, and they didn't seem to respond much to it.  

Obama surprised me too.  I thought he would uncork an inspirational, rocking speech, get everyone on their feet like he did in 2004.  Instead, he gave what I think was a relatively dry, professorial dissertation on what is wrong with our politics today. Lately, I keep seeing that law professor side of Obama come out.  I end up being very impressed with his ability to share his complex thoughts with all of us (just like his book), but, strangely, I almost feel that he is not really giving a political speech...but instead...a really good college lecture.

I kind of feel that Obama bravely went into a room full of veteran political types and told them that politics is just going to have to change. Who us?! He told them....No more cynical poltics.  No more negative attacks. No more politics as bloodsport.  No more maligning Republicans.  Just open and honest debate.  Hmmm...

Hillary Clinton I think gave a very straight forward speech that was credible, but not visibly or audibly inspiring to the audience.  Her language struck me as very much Senatese and very wonkish: lots of excess verbiage gumming up her ideas.  She hit the notes that her team wants to emphasize now well, and she mentioned a few times what she will do when she is elected President.  Feeling inevitable?  Her loud statement that if she were President in 2002, she would NOT have started the Iraq war was very interesting.  Hmmm....

In contrast to the other speeches, Edwards speech went straight for the heart. It was almost spiritual in its structure, cadence and reminders to the DNC audience about what we Democrats stand for, how we need to stand up for the poor, the uninsured, and the working people of this country. In contrast to Clark, Obama and Clinton, Edwards praised unionism directly and explicitly.   Very interesting.  The audience seemed to be genuinely inspired by Edwards, and they gave him a number of standing ovations.  He closed his speech very nicely, and seemed to "bless"...well...just about everyone in attendance (?).  It is hard to escape the conclusion that Edwards won this round. As I see it, Hillary Clinton came in second, with Obama, an interesting wild card, very hard to place.


by Demo37 on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 04:31:18 AM EST

Were You Guys At The Same Venue? (none / 0)

Did any of you see a reporter from the Times?  They have a piece titled Cornered Clinton in the morning edition that says she was heckled and Senator Obama got a standing ovation, and cite the Iraq war as the reason.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:08:28 AM EST

An Interesting Perspective (none / 0)

I clicked on your link.  Yes, that is an interesting perspective from the UK reporter.  

In support of that perspective, I did notice that Obama's speech received its biggest applause when he mentioned that he was opposed to the war.  And Hillary Clinton's speech did get bogged down when she tried to dance around Iraq, and tell the world that a non-binding resolution was the best thing to do.

But...these two facts...I do not think really describe the overall story of what happened at all on Friday.  Edwards gave the most effective speech; his inspiring speech was the best received by these very important Democrats.  Clark was strangely and unncessarily fixated on the military; he also did not look comfortable in this partisan setting.  Clinton gave the delegates an "I'm going to win" and be a wonkish president speech.

And Obama gave a VERY surprising speech to the most partisan Democrats in the country.  He told them that partisan politics must be transcended, changed, in favor of fair and honest debate.  No more maligning Republicans. (What?) Very Interesting.


by Demo37 on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Interesting Perspective (none / 0)

Yeah, as much as that article aligned with my personal prejudices on those two it seemed an instructive example of just how much spin goes into media reporting.  From reading the in-depth posts of people who were actually there it seemed to bear no direct relationship to the actual performance or reception of those two speakers.  Edwards didn't even get mentioned in that piece.

I mean, that is the journal of record in the UK.

As far as your comments about Senator Obama I am also very interested that he would take his least popular rhetorical position with the very audience most critical of it.  Sounds like he was actually talking to that audience about something he wanted them to consider rather than canvassing their support by saying what they wanted to hear.  That's Obama.  Fair and honest debate, imagine that.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Interesting Perspective (none / 0)

Sorry, it did mention Edwards, but only just.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.