ATTENTION REPUBLICANS, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A CANDIDATE? HERE'S YOUR MAN
LINK: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=senator_noshow
TEXT: (from The American Prospect)
NOT VOTING IS NOT THE SAME AS VOTING NO.
I read this Noam Scheiber item on The Plank with interest, as Noam's been on a bit of a roll lately with his campaign analysis, and earlier got the diagnosis of the problems with the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaign exactly right. But one thing that seriously undermines Obama's case for his judgment in the present debate over Hillary Clinton's yes vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution is that Obama himself failed to cast a vote on it. Nonetheless, here's the message the Obama campaign sent out to supporters today, urging them to march against the war in Iraq:
Many Republicans and even a few Democrats refuse to admit the mistake they made five years ago. And now we're seeing history repeat itself as the drumbeat builds for a war with Iran.
Once again, some politicians are more afraid of appearing weak than they are of being dragged into another war.
It's going to take your personal involvement to stop the march to the next war...
It seems to me that if Obama thought the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution vote was as important a line in the sand on a march to war with Iran as he is now making it out to be, he could have taken the time to come back to Washington, give a speech on the issue, and urge all his Democratic Senate colleagues to vote no, too. And then he could have cast a vote himself.
A speech of that sort would probably have been enough to get Clinton to alter her vote, because the evidence suggests that pressure from less high-profile presidential competitor Chris Dodd has already helped move her (as well as Obama) toward a more decisive position on withdrawing from Iraq. Obama could have tried to unite the Democratic caucus of the U.S. Senate on this issue, and urged them to present a united front on this foreign policy question. Instead, he managed to be out of town on the day of the vote, and then did not issue a statement on it until 10 p.m. that evening. So much for "personal involvement" in stopping the U.S. from "being dragged into another war"!
Indeed, Obama's track record on controversial votes is something I've been thinking a lot about over the past few days, ever since he appeared to call for new regulations on abortion in response to a question from an anti-choice listener in Iowa on Saturday. According The New York Times Obama said:
there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation.
As there is no such movement toward a new late-term abortion regulation among any pro-choice group I am aware of, I asked Obama spokesman Bill Burton for elaboration on this over the weekend. He said:
Obama did not suggest that new regulations were needed or appropriate. He simply stated the fact that there is agreement that late-term abortions should be limited to the rare instances where the life or health of a woman is at stake. And he has consistently made clear that abortion regulations, such as the Federal Abortion Ban, that lack exceptions for the life and health of women are unconstitutional and endanger women's health.
Both those statement suggest some comfort with banning second-term abortions, however, as most states already ban early third-trimester ones, as Roe permits them to do. And Obama is correct in that there is very little public support for keeping second-term abortions legal. Still, it would have been easier to interpret Obama's statement if he had a clear voting record on this topic. Instead, Obama managed to absent his opinion from the Illinois legislature twice during votes on a partial-birth ban in Illinois -- voting present rather than yes or no -- muddying the actual record about his beliefs. Clinton in 2000 said that she would be open to a ban on late-term abortions, as well, but when push came to shove in the U.S. Senate, she voted against the partial-birth abortion ban which Bush signed into law in 2003 and which the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year. So her record is clear.
A third example: Just a few weeks ago, Obama managed to be absent from the floor of the Senate when it came time to vote on a controversial resolution to condemn MoveOn's advertisement about Gen. Petraeus. Clinton and Dodd voted against the measure; Obama issued a statement condemning the entire exercise as distracting theatrics.
All told, these episodes have started to make me wonder if maybe Obama would have somehow managed to be absent from the Senate the day of the 2002 vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as well. It is a harsh thing to suggest, but his own campaign is now arguing that "we're seeing history repeat itself" when it comes to the power of a vote he decided to skip, and his track record on missing controversial votes is increasingly disturbing. U.S. Senators have a rare power -- there are but 100 of them for a nation of 300 million -- and when they chose to use their voices but not their votes, they are abdicating their duties as elected officials. If Obama really thinks Clinton said just yes to war with Iran, he needs to explain why he couldn't be bothered to say no.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
Man, A Gore/Richardson v Obama/Huckabee contest would be fucking close! Kelso makes it pick 'em. It's all whistling in the dark, of course, because barring an act-of-God or Blackwater, Senator Clinton will be your next President. Gore owes the Clintons too much and she's the better campaigner and he knows that. Just for having the temerity to show The Big Dog up in 2000 and fuck everything up in the process it would be the gentlemanly thing to do not to mess with the Senator's run. But if Gore really has changed and is both pissed off and feeling his oats over his Nobel Prize and does let his freak flag fly and Obama just does what have should have done ages ago, this would be a SHOW-AND-A-HALF. Wouldn't every identifiable polling segment split about 50/50 here?
But, a little item that gladdens the heart...the estimatable U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), he of jobbed out of a Senate seat by Mr. Cornholio Obama fame, has thrown his support to Clinton. Good on you. We here at the Nuts fully expect you, Representative Jackson, to be the first African-American progressive President Of The United States. Been combing the black lefty blogosphere and Kelso cannot find Jackson's name with a search party. Hmmm. What's up with that? Everything about Jackson says "unlimited upside". He's bright, progressive, tough and unapologetic about any of his views, all of which tend to the left side of Democratic orthodoxy. But Oprah no likey Jackson The Son too much it seems. Gosh, Kelso likes the TV show Seinfeld as much as they next guy, but Jerry Seinfeld isn't picking Kelso's candidate for him. What gives with Oprah? Guess everyone loves a winner. The problem here is that last we checked Obama was an 11/1 underdog to get the Democratic nomination. That says a bunch, winner not part of that bunch. Those are Kelso's tears.
A half-assed post by Kelso, but the break business was for real. And just for good orders' sake we can't let any (um) "inconvenient truths" about Obama slip by without noting them. We were a little hard on Gore yesterday, but it was a good kind of hard because there is a chance that Gore can do some good. History called to the man once, but he failed to answer and, yet, the lucky sonofabitch got another call. The right thing for him to do is to stay out of the race and try to be her conscience instead of her right-wing enabler as he was during the Dog's adminsitration.
Kelso's Nuts love you
22 comments:
i've only heard of the prospect of a jackson jr. candidacy right here, at kelso's nuts. do you think, perhaps, that as a son of a media, ummm, well, you know, he might go out of his way to avoid the media storm and when he's good and ready to make his move, he'll do it on his own terms. with the best advisors and his own smart-as-a-whip counsel? without a circus. because, i'm sure, he knows a circus when he sees one.
and, as well, i imagine that he certainly doesn't want to be seen either licking oprah's ass, overtly currying her favor, or in any way gaining benefits from her, shall we say, largesse (no pun intended?).
anyway, people need to be reminded (or maybe it's just the silly deluded women we see in her audience), very loudly and clearly, that OPRAH DOES NOT REPRESENT EITHER YOU, OR ME. SHE, DEAR VIEWERS, REPRESENTS THEM. oprah is just another behemoth corporate entity.
i wish people would get over oprah.
I suppose that we should each give weight to the opinions of pundits and celebrities and celebrity pundits appropriate to what we would give to each other.
That would be to recognize that each of us is entitled to our most educated opinion.
Knowing the amount of education that any individual has about the candidate is the trick.
The 2008 goat radio is giving me a massive headache. No wonder so many people are happy to think more about Survivor or Dancing with the Stars.
oprah, like bloomberg could buy an entire election (doesnt mean they would win, just buy)
as for Gore, he aint running ---- for a lot of reasons....
The woman is a powerhouse. She controls the tastes and opinion of vast numbers of people. This is a subject for another time but she has so much clout she got into a position in which she is to the publishing industry what the head of a central bank is to the debt and currency markets. I don't know the figures for sure but I'd be awfully surprised if one half of Obama's most recent quarter's cash was raised AFTER her Obama party. The reporting period followed the Obama thing by what, a week, five days?
The agglomeration of the Evangelist and Fundamentalist sects has more political and market clout but there is no single PERSON in America with Oprah's clout. Feature that for a second. One little random segment of her program changed a multi-billion dollar international industry. AND SHE ADVOCATES FOR CANDIDATES. I surely wouldn't put her influence any smaller than Murdoch's. She can't elect a president but she can probably elect somebody to any other competitive office, certainly in the industrial midwest. Without Oprah, the African-American heads-up polling of Clinton/Obama quite sensibly goes about 60/40 Clinton. With her, it's 50/50. I happen to despise the candidate she advocates. If she advocated Clinton I would be indifferent. If she advocated Kucinich (RIGHT!) I'd jump for joy but I still can't stand her. A personal thing.
Why don't you hear or read about Jesse Jackson, Jr., except on this blog? Take a wild guess. The media can't ignore Conyers or Rangel because they have too much clout. After that, how many Black progressives do you see or read about? About none. And there are 70 of them in the House. And Jackson is probably the youngest, smartest and most personable of the bunch. He's wise beyond his years and in terms of presentation he's more like a smarter Kennedy than like his father. He certainly has the brightest future but now he's stuck. He can run for mayor of Chicago, but no one gets through that experience unhurt. He can run for Governor of Illinois but that's another mare's nest. Or he can move to North Carolina and roll the dice in a red state.
But neither Oprah nor Jesse Jackson, Jr. was the point of this. I just ran across this Obama tidbit and felt like passing it along.
Previous one in response to ANITA.
D-CUP: I like to find out about all of the politicians myself. I do all the research I can and read the blogs I trust. So far, I've only found one official pundit who I find scholarly enough to influence my way of thinking one way or another -- Rachel Maddow. Quite a few, however, I find to be very strong contra-indicators, like David Broder or Joe Klein for example. Celebrities' opinions do not affect me in the slightest.
I will most likely cast my next and final vote in an American election in the general election for President in '08. I suppose it will be for Hillary Clinton. I will, however, continue to wager on these things but as there are deep markets in the elections in most democracies, I'll have to widen out my knowledge a bit. That's a good thing. If I have any complaint about the blogs, it's that I find (and do) a lot of trashing of those who deserve it but not enough weighing things up and maybe finding the few pearls that are out there -- a Jesse, Jr., for example. One of the HELLIONS had a nice little write up on Sibelius, Scott and Kaine, all of whom have a lot of promise as Red State Democrats.
I like your class-blind populist viewpoint on this D-CUP, and in some respects politics is just another sport like tennis or baseball or some kind of theater, but sometimes LIKE RIGHT NOW it very much isn't and I've experienced first hand how much damage an uneducated populace can do.
DIST-CAP: Gore isn't running for anything. Even if he were the most competitive guy in the world, he can't beat Clinton, anyway. His unfavorable ratings are almost as high as hers despite his big 2007. And he doesn't have any fight in him. If he continues on as he's done this past year, keeping environmental issues at the forefront and stretching out into areas like faith versus reason, peace, etc., he'll be an important American. I think without the burden of running for office we're likely to continue to see him at his best, although until maybe 2003, he was the boll weevil's boll weevil. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
There is a question I'd like to ask everyone. Because I live in a place that has a very one-sided, extraordinarily positive view of Bill and Hillary Clinton, I always get surprised when I read or hear how "polarizing" she is. Given her center-right positions and obvious competence, I fail to see why she isn't a "uniting" figure. Never mind the numbers, what is the general mood about her in the US?
short answer on the "polarizing" issue.
hilary clinton is an extremely complex, visciously smart, street savvy woman. she's tried to cover it up at times, to soften herself a bit, and be, like oprah, the "homegirl" or like martha stewart, the "doyenne of domesticity," but it hasn't worked very at all for her. which may ultimately be her undoing.
she is what she is: extraordinarily competitive, fiercely competetent and absolutely sure of herself. but many see those traits as "unattractive" or "put-offish" or, as you say "polarizing" in a woman. those qualities, in men, are seen as hugely attractive, but, in the end, for a woman, they just ain't ladylike.
so, short answer in summary: sexism. in it's purest manifestation.
americans, we're, as a people, so completely retrograde, are we not?
Anita:
It seems to be you've nailed it.
I sure can't figure out any other reason. I'm far to her right on taxes and financial regulation but far, far left of her on everything else. Despite that, I think her competitiveness, her amazing political savvy, book and street smarts, and her toughness make her pretty fucking presidential in my eyes. She looks like a leader to me. If nothing else, she wants this bad enough that she won't let the Republican dirty trick machine rob her of a single vote. Unlike some candidates of recent vintage I could name.
Sen. Clinton's not exactly my ideal choice but no one (except Christian Fundamentalists with Bush) gets everything they want in a candidate in a democratic republic. I have ideological gripes but will vote for her happily. I have to believe that men who dislike her so in the USA have ideologies closer to hers than to mine. Got to be the sexism, but...
...By "style" you'd say that Panama is a more "sexist" society in the traditional sense than the US is, though far less so in a material sense, meaning pay equity, equal access to professions and birth control etc are settled issues but there's a more old school vibe between men and women socially. And to get along AS A MAN requires more old school shit than life in the States does. Christ, the biggest shylock here is gay! This is anythng but a wimpy country.
Yet, I can't find a MAN down here, rich or poor, Christian, Jew Muslim, Buddhist or atheist, gay or straight, local or immigrant who isn't rooting for her heart and soul. It's probably a combination of Bill Clinton's reverting to the Carter-O.Torrijos rules and pulling US Military and CIA out and that the previous president to M. Torrijos was a woman. So, this whole "woman president" thing is no big deal here.
USA retrograde? It sure seems that way. Maybe the USA could use a little more Old School, ironically, to get more progressive!
Provocative post Kelso.
First of all, I am always delighted to read your Obama-rama insights. You actually truly helped me to see another side of him. I wasn't for him before, but I wasn't against him either. Your writing had me dig deeper(sorry, the researcher in me can't just go with what Kelso says, unless it is about gambling!) and I found my conviction. Obama- dangerous.
That whole Jackson thing- interesting but requires more study.
Oprah- can she just finally please STFU already? I loathe her. Truly deeply loathe her! How can she be part of forming opinions? Oh I forgot in the US of Assholes we like other people to make up our mind for us, especially if they are rich.
Hillary. Ugh. I truly loathe her. As a presidential candidate. She has by and large been a good senator here in NY.
I have many reasons for not liking her- too far to the right for me, very hawkish to boot and the way too much AIPAC/Israel for even a half shaina maidl like me.
However I sadly think many dislike her for no good reason at all other than she is:
1) a woman
2) Bill's wife
3) all of the above
I love Gore and wish he would run, but even a non-gambler like me isn't putting any money on that one!
He found his center doing this environmental stuff and that is where he is at. Being a politician means being someone else. Not sure he is up for that and why should he.
Then all the Clinton complications as you mentioned. Such tsuris.
Oh well. Thanks for a good post!
Given her center-right positions and obvious competence, I fail to see why she isn't a "uniting" figure. Never mind the numbers, what is the general mood about her in the US?
in the liberal oasis of Manhattan, most people would hope she would just remain senator. she is not well-liked --- not the kind of girl you want to have a beer with.
she is a dividing figure for many reasons, but Anita hit the nail on the head for the #1 -- sexism. we are trained to see rich, white, wasps running this country (and often running it into the ground) -- the site of an actual viable non-RWW running drives some people on both sides batshit.
also more than any other candidate (and they all come across this way) she has not ONE IOTA of naturalness to her -- she a trained, programmed talking point -- and looks it. As i said they all do it, except she can't act the way Romney and Giuliani can -- making it look real. She is the aunt you are forced to visit, and you smile a lot when you see her, but man are you glad to get away.
then there are her positions --- name them. you can't because while the media has defined them for us, she sure hasn't -- she walks right down the middle of everything without saying anything. so in a sick way i guess that works since.
she is the rock star --- the vapid brain that everyone wants on tv because of the name but really has so little talent. think a political britney spears.
there are SO many reasons to not want hillary as a the nominee and very very few to want to be the nominee. but she is bought and paid for and anointed by the lazy idiot press in this country. the press wants her controversy -- fills a lot of the dead air. richardson or even edwards would not fill that air with salacious or interesting enough stories for the media's needs -- so the media wants her. she is good for ratings, and good for advertisers.
giuliani in many ways is a male version of hillary. except he is much more mean spirited and an even bigger panderer(if you can believe that)
FranIam:
With Anita and yourself, I've sold at 2 people on the reality of Obama. Betting markets tell me a lot of other people feel the same way. He was -$2.25 to FAIL to get the Democratic nomination when I began shorting in is -$11.00. My partner and I have decided to start scalping back when we are able to TAKE +$20.00. He was NEVER as popular as he was made out to seem. That's the horse-race. You know how repellent I find Obama the (um) man.
There's no "Jackson thing". He is a U.S. Rep. from Illinois. He gets practically no TV time but every time you see him you just think "damn," this guy's it. Don't think black. Don't think religion. Don't think Jesse, Sr. Think a Patrick Kennedy with an IQ well above average instead of well below. As young as he is and despite his pedigree, this is a very erudite kid. And he doesn't do indentity politics. He does progressive politics. By the way, I'm on a mission to change the "code" from "articulate" to "patrician" and/or "erudite". It's both more accurate in most cases and much more respectful.
Ah, Oprah. Yes, ["Oh I forgot in the US of Assholes we like other people to make up our mind for us, especially if they are rich."] Not just the US. I've seen this story twice before: in the USSR and the Republic Of Ireland pre-EU. It was very easy for citizens to let the Communist Party and Catholic Church, respectively do one's thinking.
I cannot disagree with you on her ideology such as it is. But as of all the choices, I agree with Kucinich on about 90% of the issues and Ron Paul about 15%. Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden are all AIPAC, too. HRC is certainly no worse than them on the issues but way better as a leader. I began Kelso's Nuts 2+ years ago despising her, too. Until I saw what the competition and John Kerry were like. You like research; so, read Michael Tomasky's HILLARY'S TURN to get a sense of just how good a politician she is.
I REALLY, REALLY want to go over the falls in a barrel believing Al Gore has CHANGED. But what fully-formed adult really changes? Talk about AIPAC? Gore practically invented it and he's not even Jewish. Until Gore admits he has evolved, that he had be WRONG, that he had been scared that the Republican "Southern Strategy" would eat him up the way it had his father, that he'd found in Peretz and AIPAC a godfather and money that's all, I don't trust him. Even Edwards and Richardson have been man enough to admit their mistakes.
DISTRIBUTORCAP:
Points draw with you on Romney/Giuliani as against Clinton. Romney's an automaton and much less AUTHENTIC than HRC. Giuliani is NOT ACTING at all. He is totally sui generis, just mean and insane. From everything I've heard about her, the public persona is velly, velly different from the private woman. You like research? Google "Dan Lasater". And don't forget how she drank McCain under the table. She is too careful by half but that's her campaign style. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I can name all of her positions because I, too, like to form my own opinons rather than have Joe Klein form them for me. The Britney Spears analogy maybe goes so far as that in her day she's probably spilled more yeyo than Obama's had, but as for "talent", she's got it coming out of her pockets and shoes. Vapid? Hardly. Pretty close to genius as far as I can tell. Of course, she's a panderer of the worst kind. I already told you I can't find one issue upon which HRC and I agree, but Kucinich is the only one I agree with 90% and Ron Paul 15%. Edwards, Obama, Richardson and Biden's views are IDENTICAL to Hillary's, except she might even be to their LEFT. Sure, the media wants a big target and she's been smart enough to do jiu-jitsu with that.
Paisano, you are indeed helping me understand, but whom would you prefer? Kucinich, sure. And it's important to vote for him just to show support, but he has no chance to win. Gore? I'm not willing to gamble with him. Least not until he fesses up. So, who, then? Obama? That's nuts. Edwards? He's Clinton with no balls. Richardson? Clinton with no brains. Biden? Clinton with TOO MUCH CRYSTAL METH IN HIM. Any of the Republicans? Please. It's fun to fantasize about Ron Paul and there are a couple of good things about Huckabee but they're ALL cretins, Paul and Huckabee included.
I voted for Tassini in the '06 primary and PASSED the gen'l. I'm not particularly a Hillary Clinton advocate. I feel about her much the way I felt about Bill. I voted for Brown in the '92 primary, Clinton in the '92 general, and PASSED in '96. Though I made money BETTING on Clinton in 96 in the outright and on Buchanan in the futures -- how often do you get paid 18/1 just to win one primary!
I certainly like her more than I liked Gore in 2000. Back then, I voted for Bradley in the primary and Nader in the general. And I certainly like her more than Kerry '04: went Kucinich in primary, and Kerry in general and felt terrible about it.
Thsnks, all of you. I'm getting a better handle on the animus left, right and center. The next question is, of course, would you VOTE for her against any of these Republicans?
here is my thoughts/choices as of now
i will NOT vote for her in the primary no matter what --- by the time the NY primary is held (2/5) the media will have appointed their god. if she wins in Iowa and NH they will crown her Queen Shit.
right now i am Edwards then Kucinich. i know you can't stand Obama but i can deal with him, especially over Hillary. I also can deal with Richardson and Dodd. Part of me thinks Obama is campaigning for Veep with her. I like Edwards -- tho he does need some bigger kahunas.
i would vote for Stalin over any of the repubs -- any of them including Paul. Paul is fucking insane tho i do agree with him on some points. the "top tier" (man do i hate that term since it basically relegates everyone else to nothing) are so loathsome and so despicable, if one wins i might have you seek out a nice place for me in Panama. the worst is Grandpa Thompson - then Romney, then McInsane, the Giuliani.
put your odds on the fact that if it is HRC/Obama one of the those 4 nightmares will be our next president. the only hope we have (and i think is possible) is the demos pick up 9/10 senate seats (allowing the 60 and dumping Lieberman) and 15-20 house seats.
also Nancy Pelosi is a major major major disappointment. that also will hurt HRC among the left base.
Paisano:
The primary is not relevant to me. I am only able to vote in Presidential elections or on constitutional amendments and I'm pretty sure '08 will be my last American ballot cast. Would you vote for Clinton in the general election?
I wouldn't worry about a Clinton/Obama ticket. It's not going to happen. Odds? I'd make Obama maybe 40/1 against being chosen for VP. If she puts Obama up, it all becomes the Obama show and she's not down with that. I think in rank order the VP possibilities are: CLARK, RICHARDSON, VILSACK, KAINE or DODD. Outside shot to SCHWEITZER or BREDESEN. Dealing it to ~122%, I'd make the odds:
CLARK 2/1
RICHARDSON 5/2
VILSACK 6/1
KAINE 8/1
BAYH 9/1
SCHWEITZER 12/1
BRESEDEN 15/1
DODD 15/1
OBAMA 40/1
FIELD 40/1
Oh yeah, D-CAP, Pelosi. I really didn't expect anything different from her. She's bought-and-paid-for by LockheedMartin. No different than Jane Harman. They are twin sisters who had a spat. Pelosi's daughter filmed a hagiography of Bush, remember?
When Gephardt left, there were three candidates for minority leader: Pelosi, Hoyer and Frost. Hoyer's even worse than Pelosi. Frost was the guy. The Dems fucked that one up, as they did with Reid over Dodd.
Would you vote for Clinton in the general election?
unfortunately yes --- i cannot pull the lever (we still have those machines here) for any republican at all and i do not want my vote to be Nader-like and help get one of the four horse's asses of the apocolypse into the white house.
by default with me holding my nose -- she gets my vote.
tho in this state -- it is so friggin blue now it hardly matters
and the media is chomping at the bits for a Clinton-Giuliani race -- cause they think New York is "in-play" wake up assholes -- it aint.
Of course not. Pure silliness. Giuliani has no shot against Clinton in NY. The media need to wake up here. These are the states "in play": Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Nevada and Arizona. Color FL, WV and OH BLUE.
You really dislike Clinton that much, huh? Interesting. But everybody has his or her tastes. Personally, if Obama were to get the nomination, I'd vote for BROWNBACK, HUCKABEE, ROMNEY or PAUL and maybe even ENGLISH LEATHER over him. PASS Obama vs. GIULIANI or MCCAIN or any of the others. So, I guess I get where you're coming from re HRC.
I know that runs against orthodoxy but I think that Obama is no LESS conservative or religious than the Republicans I'd consider, so ideologically it wouldn't matter, and Brownback, Huckabee and Paul are certainly more intelligent than Obama is and seem more sure-footed and strong, but as a template for the Democratic Party going forward Obama is as bad as it gets.
You probably think the same about Clinton. I don't. I just think she's a better poltician, a stronger person, and is Center-Right as opposed to Obama who's either Hard-Right or whatever Lieberman tells him to be.
This is really a great post- any post that engenders this much conversation and thought provoking matter is really good.
That's my kelso!
It's really good because it's exactly what I was looking for. I respect everyone's opinion here a lot. And I love it when it differs from my own because it makes my sharpen mine up. And I'm always liable to overlook something -- especially with regard to the Clintons because they are so beloved in Panama.
I don't think there's a great deal of distance between D-CAP's ideology and mine. But for Clinton to win, she's going to need all the MALE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE/LEFTY votes she can get. And maybe I've gotten nto the point where I'm so desperate to see a Democratic winner and/or have gone native to such a degree that I'm overlooking those very things that made me skeptical to start with.
He's not really buying my Obama argument but I don't mind that either. I need to know for many reasons WHY Obama has appeal for a voter who fits my profile as closely as D-CAP does. I need it for a greater understanding of the political scene, for a better handle on the wagering end of it, and to place this period in some kind of historical context.
Wow! You guys are ferocious! What a great read this was. Just a few lowly comments from minimally informed me:
I agree with Anita that HRC is competitive, competent and confident, which is "off-putting in a woman," among the retrograde, sexist American public. Also, I am SO DISGUSTED with the various broadcaster-asswipes who carry on enlessly about her laugh! That's like making fun of someone because they have a deformity. Totally inane and childish.
As much as I respect Kelso's opinions, I cannot agree that Brownback and Huckabee "are certainly more intelligent than Obama is," since they both have stated that they do not believe in evolution. Either they are pandering to the retarded right, or they have a mental deficiency.
I better stop before my blood pressure reaches critical mass.
Are you convinced that Obama believes in evolution? Do you have proof? I don't because I've never heard him speak of it nor have I read anything he's written about it. I have, however, heard and read him prattling on endlessly about his personal relationship with Jesus and how essential it is for a politician to have Jesus in his life and to accept Jesus as his personal savior. [KATHA POLLITT IN THE NATION IF YOU WANT TO GOOGLE]
ASSORTED STUFF FROM HUCKABEE AND BROWNBACK FROM ST ANSELM'S DEBATE AND NON-PARTISAN ONTHEISSUES.ORG
Plenty of choices for candidates who don't believe in God
Q: Do you believe, literally, creation was done in six days, as it is described in the Bible?
HUCKABEE: Whether God did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it, and that's what's important. But I'll tell you what I can tell the country. If they want a president who doesn't believe in God, there's probably plenty of choices. If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it. But I believe that all of us in this room are the unique creations of a God who knows us and loves us and who created us for his own purpose.
BROWNBACK: I believe that we are created in the image of God for a particular purpose. And I am fully convinced there's a God of the universe that loves us very much and was involved in the process. How he did it, I don't know. One of the problems we have with our society today is that we put faith and science at odds with each other. They aren't at odds with each other.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
Mike Huckabee: Address gay behavior if problematic, not gay attitudes
Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?
PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality.
HUCKABEE: It's already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. I think that's what Congressman Paul was saying. It's about conduct, it's not about attitude. You don't punish people for their attitudes. You punish them if their behavior creates a problem.
Q: So you wouldn't change existing policy.?
HUCKABEE: I don't think that I would. I think it's already covered by the existing policy that we do have, in fact.
Mike Huckabee: I'm running for president, not writing science curriculum
Q: At a previous debate, you indicated that you do not believe in evolution. What do you believe? Is it the story of creation as it is described in the Bible?
A: It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president. I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president. But you've raised the question, so let me answer it. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." To me it's pretty simple, a person either believes that God created this process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own.
Q: Do you believe literally it was done in six days and it occurred 6,000 years ago?
A: I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don't honestly know, and I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
On Principles & Values: GOP lost 2006 election because they failed to do their job
Q: The Republicans lost the majority in the House and the Senate in 2006 -- What's happened to the GOP?
A: We lost credibility because we didn't do what we were hired to do. When you're elected, you're hired to do a job. You're hired to cut spending, lower taxes, bring more government back to the local people. We did the polar opposite, and the people fired us. And I think in many ways, although there are some good people that got caught up in the tsunami of the 2006 elections, the Republican Party as a whole deserved to get beat. We've lost credibility--the way we bungled Katrina, the fact that there was corruption that was unchecked in Washington, and the fact that there was a feeling that there was not a proper handling of the Iraqi war in all of these details, and the indifference to people pouring over our borders.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007
On Principles & Values: Valuing life is the country's most pressing moral issue
Q: What is the most pressing moral issue in this country?
A: If you define a moral issue, it is our respect, our sanctity and our understanding of the value of every single human life, because that is what makes America a unique place. We value every life of an individual as if it represents the life of us all.
Many of us who are pro-life have made the mistake of giving people the impression that pro-life means we care intensely about people as long as that child is in the womb, but beyond the gestation period, we've not demonstrated as demonstrably as we should that we respect life at all levels, not just during pregnancy. The unique part of our country is that we elevate and we celebrate human life.
And if you contrast us with the Islamic jihadists, who would strap a bomb to the belly of their own child and kill innocent people, they celebrate death, we celebrate life. It's the fundamental thing that makes us unique and it keeps us free. I pray we never, ever abandon that basic principle.
On War & Peace: Get Iraq to point that we can turn it over to Iraqis
Q: What would you do to bring this conflict to a point at which we can safely bring our troops home?
A: It's not about leaving and it's not about being defeated. It's about getting the situation to a point that we can turn it over to Iraqis and then us pull back from the front of the line. That's why I'm putting forward a bill about a three-state solution in Iraq--a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, a Shi'a state--with Baghdad as the federal city, in a loose, weak, federated system, oil revenues equally divided. We will have bipartisan support. We've got to pull together here to win over there. A political solution that will be long term and durable.
Q: Is that a good idea to divide up Iraq?
A: It's not divided. Three states, one country.
I didn't see anything that clear or specific from Obama and certainly nothing, ironically, as "left wing". He's pro-choice but with many reservations. That's about it.
Z:
I'm not saying these guys are GOOD. I'm saying that for Republicans they're not bad and I have a very good idea where they stand. Their views on religion aren't mine but they are more nuanced than the media would have you believe. I have NO idea where Obama stands on anything other than that he's religious and believes in bi-partisanship.
Your quotes from the GOP debate were very enlightening, therefore helpful to me. Huckabee sounds more reasonable than I thought he was. Thank you, Kelso.
I have strong opinions but I try to keep an open mind.
I want a Democrat to be President of the USA in 2008. I just don't want that Democrat to be Obama because I believe him to be a Republican Trojan-Horse who could do irreparable damage not only to the country but to "my" party as well.
Unfortunately or fortunately, Huckabee is a little too good a candidate. Unfortunately, because he has an outside chance of getting the nomination and winning, fortunately, because he's a zillion times better than Bush.
My favorite big-time pundit, Rachel Maddow, has made this point over and over again. She's very happy that Huckabee has neither time nor money to make a big run at nomination exactly because he'd be a great candidate and is not totally sick and she, too, wants a Democrat in there.
As much as I trash Obama, I have to give him a LOT of credit for tossing the flag pin and giving a great explanation of why he did it: fake patriotism in place of real patriotism. As I don't like nationalism at all, I don't love the idea of "patriotism" but I liked the way Obama handled himself. For once.
Post a Comment