Comments on Words vs. Change, Angry vs. Calm

i don't think anyone is ideal in the democratic field.

watching the debate, there were many moments when i thought, "hopefully these guys will work together after the election. then maybe they can get something done."


political dynasties are unamerican. that's a big part of why i don't support hillary.


i think everyone faired pretty well, and it was definitely a breath of fresh air after the very flatulent republican debate.


it's going to be a very outdoorsy affair until we get to wire, and i hope richardson sticks it out. i like to hear the exchange of ideas, a facet of national politics one starts to miss after 8 years of presidential gibberish. and i was 14 when he was elected, so all i could do during his debates with gore was stare incredulously at the television screen.


the youth/non-voter vote is on the horizon, i hope. and if so, the pot's going to get stirred. i always maintain faith that the empowered american voter elects a president that reflects REAL american ideals. not just fake ones.


even though i am in love with a fervent obama supporter, i haven't made up my mind about everything. although i've gotten more excited post-iowa win.


unity and change are the main factors people need to rally around. obama is good for that because people want to be able to love their president again. and if everyone is in love with a black candidate, well, he's making history for his race and paving the way for "the america of the future." the america where we have no oil and the coasts are battered by storms. good luck to us?


this race is pushing a lot of boundaries! progressive ideals are being tested and the status quo is shifting because people are realizing the status quo is untenable. community is possibly the last hope americans have, and even that won't make everything perfect.


anyway, it's time for all of us to pay attention to what we want to happen to this country.


to hillary: words are important in debates.

No one won in the debates last night, and no one was hurt too badly.

OBAMA -- appeared tired, used "bridge wording" to stall for time and appeared to wander in his answers. He left no sound bites. If this was the best orator of the race, he did not please last night.

CLINTON -- Ah yes, those clips. Someone showed some emotion so they must die -- and god knows the media loved the Dean Scream so much last go-round we need to invent one now. It was heat, not apoplexy. She handled herself well, but no knockout blows and no self-inflicted wounds -- unless women aren't allowed to show any emotion. Oh, and I'll never forget the term, "35 years," for better or for worse.

EDWARDS -- The only one of the four who looked to have gotten any sleep (but then, Richardson always seems like he just been awoken). He was polished and well-spoken, but I couldn't help feel like "I've heard this all before." It's like having a kid who plays a beautiful etude on the piano, very well, but it's just that same goddamn etude, over and over until you swear to god you're gonna slam the lid down on that piano and... Whew, I digress. At any rate, accomplished delivery, but I'm not feeling the message.

RICHARDSON -- Obviously smart, obviously passionate, thoroughly unable to frame his policies in a way that makes me want him to lead me in a very scary world. Instead of an oval office, Richardson should be kept in a cabinet (the kind with a table and chairs).

All in all, the media are looking for a "Hillary melts down in face of Obama wave" story, but the cover of the Manchester Union Leader this morning is about REPUBLICAN debate fireworks...and an explosion at a gas facility. Perhaps that's just reporting on the same event.

After eight years of GWB, my crazy dream is that Americans would be into choosing a president who's obviously prepared, intelligent, engaged, & hard-working. Then add "Democrat" to that list and if that isn't a monumental "change", I don't know what is.

I dread those clips being turned into DeanScream by a lazy media desperate for a soundbyte story. Particularly if they are taken out of the context of two guys ganging up on her for much of the debate. At least they might help Clinton shake off the "cold" or "aloof" reputation.

If the clips "say it all", then words don't matter, do they?

was that suppose to be a "dean scream"?? i thought it was very well stated. i actually like her more after viewing those clips.

For me it will always be her votes on Iraq and especially the recent one on Iran. Sorry, but I don't think she's very smart at all, despite popular opinion.

Those clips seemed pretty strong to me, too, especially the first one.

So, Eli, it seemed to me you're trying to make some sort of drama. The funny thing is, I saw George Stephanapolous say the same things last night while speaking with Diane Sawyer; that it wasn't Clinton's "best moment" when she got angry.

For all The Stranger tries to make itself out to be different than most large mainstream media, Eli, you sure parroted your peers there. Sorry, sir.

I didn't understand it when George made the point last night, and I don't understand it this morning reading it here. So she got passionate. Big whoop. She wasn't screaming, berating, or flying off any handles that I saw. In fact, her replies seemed to be in kind with the same kinds of replies Edwards and Obama made when their credibility was questioned.

It will be interesting to hear from Eli why he chose these clips, because *I* thought he chose them because they distill down the fundamental issue between Clinton and Obama- policies vs. philosophy.

Clinton has staked her campaign on "I was part of xyz policies in the 1990's and I'll bring abc policies in the new century." The block and tackling of politics.

Obama says "don't look at the minutia. Look at the big picture and choose the candidate that has the same values and faith and hopes that you do."

I think both arguments have their merit, but they represent orthogonal POV to the political process. Whichever view is more popular with the voters will determine which candidate gets the nomination.

Oh, by the way- Edwards is done. At this point he's trying to piggyback himself to the philosophy argument. "Me too, me too!", he said last night. It's a ham handed reaction to Iowa, and means he no longer brings anything new to the contest. He used to represent different policies than Clinton/Obama. Now he's just Obama-Lite. Buh bye.

SPOILER ALERT:

OK, at the risk of invoking the wrath of the universe, I'm going to reveal how all this ends up.

* The bright-eyed, crunchy, salutary "feelings" branch of the Dem party wins out, nominating Barack Obama as the party's nominee. This results in Dems having a reason to feel good about themselves and their moment in history. For those of you old enough, please insert your memory chip from when Ferraro was named VP.

* The Repubs will be serious about winning, and nominate McCain. They will be looking for their version of "change maverick" while at the same time layering that with "certified American hero," "military expert," and, to a lesser degree, "a guy I can relate to."

* The economy will be a major issue, as will healthcare and the war in Iraq. Obama will make early progress on all these and continue to build goodwill around his being the first Af-Am major party candidate (sorry, Lenora...).

* Sometime before the election, there will be a catastrophic terrorist event on the level of a major mall bombing, building bombing, etc.

* In the space of 24 hours, the USA electorate will go in a tremendous wave over to the white male who was in the Navy, and who has the fortitude to do battle against the "evil doers." No one will have time for feel-good things. We'll be back in the bunker, working from our lizard brains.

Eli's first election day pint is on me if I am wrong.

Forget about the comparison of Hillary's rant to the Dean Scream... She reminded me more of Eleanor Clift when the rest of the panel gangs up on her during the "McLaughlin Group."

The D's seem like the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy Kucinich, Scarecrow Edwards, Tin Man Obama, and Cowardly Lion Edwards... And pretty soon we'll be saying "ding dong, the witch is dead. which ol' witch? the wicked witch."

For the R's, please, who can possibly predict what's going to happen? The Huckster has a built-in constituency and could grind out 30% of the total delegates -- and nobody has it wrapped up -- going into the convention. Heh, maybe they'll give it to Colin Powell at the convention when they realize that's the only way to stop Obama.

... make that Cowardly Lion Richardson

Wait, were those clips where Hillary supposedly damaged herself so badly last night?

I don't like Hillary, but those clips don't look bad at all to me.  To the contrary, she shoulds articulate and persuasive.  Do we prefer instead the robotic scriptedness we're used to from most candidates?

I agree with #5 and first paragraph #11. These clips showed Clinton's strengh and that she's not backing down.

One of the main complaints about Clinton is that she's a bland, centrist question-dodger. Didn't sound like that here.

Jubilation @10:

Thanks for the scenario of terror attack and lizard brain reaction.
It's good to think about it. That's the danger we face.

I hope you're not right, as it would mean the terrorists win, by being able to manipulate and control the "lizard brains" among us, driving the USA to more counterproductive invasions, torture, and loss of rights.

But -- Obama is addressing this, by directly talking about fear of terrorists.
He said 9-11 was used to generate fear and win elections. That the whole Iraq invasion and Congressional vote was based in fear.

The only way to change lizardly fear is to talk about fear using that word, and help people realize it was fear and they can replace fear with with calm awareness and reason, and hope.

He's thus the only one offering a way to avoid the scenario you describe.

The words he uses matter, and can produce change, because they address hope, and fear. Like FDR.

It's not all about policiy details, lists of programs, or the 25 recommendations of the 9-11 commission, etc.

(BTW: disclaimers: C E or O would be great, all can win, all have flaws, mistakes on policy, etc.)

I didn't get to actually *see* the debate last night, but I've just finished reading the transcripts. Seems like Edwards has officially chosen sides. I know this has been discussed before, but I'm kind of hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket (backed by a super-experienced, hardcore cabinet) at this point. It would be exciting.

That said, I agree with Mr Cornball that if there is any kind of major violent disruption on home soil before the elections, Obama's electability is shot. I'm not even sure hawkish Clinton could get elected under those circumstances. Thats the problem with everyone focusing on domestic stuff -- energy, imminent recession -- if something bad happens, voters don't have any solid reason to feel secure in Democratic hands. Pakistan, nuclear attacks (over 50% chance in the next ten years?! wtf?), redeployment: those were the most interesting parts of the debate for me as an undecided voter, and a lot is riding on how the candidates answer those questions. Fear-based voting? Maybe, but it's a hell of a scary world out there.

Of course I want change. But what happens if, for instance, President Edwards is successful at seriously challenging the special interests? It would turn politics upside down, and while everyone's scurrying trying to figure out which way is North, the country would be just that much more vulnerable to attack. How will they balance instigating huge waves of change with keeping the country stable enough to meet any military challenge? I'm still not hearing clear, convincing answers.

Why do folks automatically assume that fear of terrorism will automatically translate into huge Republican gains? Not only did Bush's credibility take a very serious blow due to Iraq, the rest of the GOP did as well. Why is Huckabee or Romney going to be better poised to capitalize on a terrorist attack? Polls now show the Democrats more trusted on national security than the Republicans. I don't think it's a given that it will play out that way anymore.

Cleve & Katelyn, thanks.

Specifically to Cleve, your point has a taste of the compelling about it. In some fundamental ways, the equation of FDR to Obama is valid...

Both come to the game having participated in higher level politics; Obama as a Senator, FDR as Assistant Sec of the Navy and Governor of New York (which, more so back in his day, was a major stepping stone for higher office).

Both come to the game with profound ingrained doubts -- among SOME -- about their abilities based on stupid fucking criteria; FDR for his paralysis, Obama for his ethnicity. That said, FDR was from one of the most patrician political dynasties in history; his ranks right up there with the Kennedys and the Bushes. Quite different from a background with a soupcon of Islam and single motherhood.

It will be interesting to see if Obama can use inspiring phrases and a projection of his vision to win over the American urge to freak out. I'd like to think that was possible -- for any of the Dem candidates.

So I hope you're right and I will be watching this closely. I hope this isn't another altruistic Liberal social experiment, and that we're truly about to send our best candidate to the battle.

I'd like nothing more than to have to buy Eli that beer on election night.

What does Hillary's donor list look like? How much money has she received from big drug companies?

And on the issue of universal health care. Here are some historical fun facts about our efforts to get it done. Universal Health Care as we know it was considered to be the last piece of FDR's New Deal that he first suggested in his 1940 state of the union address. The problem at that time was the pending war which put his domestic adgenda on hold. Truman tried to push for health care as well but was stimied by a republican congress and then Richard Nixon (yeah Nixon of all people) tried to push through health coverage as well.

The reality we should all wake up to is simply this: You are naive' if you honestly think any President is going to accomplish universal health care in their administration. It is the great dead horse in the room politicians can beat up on or try to hold up for the sake of populism. But for over 60 years they have failed. And they failed with big drug companies had far less influence then they have now. Think about it.

If it's impossible, then why is there SO much talk about it this campaign season? Is universal health care to Democrats what Christ's second coming is to Baptists? (Thrilling to talk about but probably not gonna happen any time soon)

#16 "How will they balance instigating huge waves of change with keeping the country stable enough to meet any military challenge? I'm still not hearing clear, convincing answers"

I understand it all now.
Another great thing is with Obama or Edwards we will finally have a president that we can reach as a populace together and help them make decisions and policies that we need. The republicans and dems could, with the ideas of the new generations of voters at heart and movers and shakers rich or poor, can unite and have a bit of oversight on the doings of our leaders. Now we have real reprisentation once again in our democratic hopefuls who will not back down and be puppydogs for the special interests( mostly who support the religious war machine. The industrial military complex is the icing of this cake.)
That is something this country lost when some of our elders, who thought they had the nations best interest at heart, invited the GOPistapo
in to lead our affairs.
That lead to our nation being divided and no real reprisentation because of all the special interests divided on so many issues. And the wall that the Gop and Reagan / bushes put up. It was like the whitehouse became a military base and no one was aloud a voice if they were left thinking. Or centrist.
I believe that is not what the White House was meant for. We have the Pentagon for that. And somehow the two got mixed up with who was really in charge of our country.
I can see why everyone is going Democrat this time and especially Obama.
Because we were all sick and tired of Rumsfeld like characters wispering sweet nothings of war into our presidents ears.
If there is a seperation of Church and State, there ought to be also a seperation of Soldier and State. Not saying that religous people be ignored, or the military(I am ex military by the way), I am saying they should butt out of the business of guiding our presidents policies and leadership in the whitehouse. If the President says all gays should be married and grants Civil Rights to all People then he should do so. If he knows an act of War is wrong he should do so. Because he listened to the peoples voice and opinions and thought them out. And instead of just speeches of what they will do, ask the people what they want.
'For the people, by the people.'
That was not a policy either, it was an Ideal. And like those Presidents and leaders during the 1700s, I think Obama and Edwards deliver.
Policies don't make amends. Ideas do. and thats what this country needs. No more partisanship.
After reading more on Obama and Edwards, I no longer only trust them on face value but also I also trust the ambition and belief of the voters voting for him. And that is a lot of people from all walks of life. Not only in this country, but for the world as well.
Change is good especially when we can all watch instead the stockmarket going upward because of all the goodthings happening in the world, and not because of the bad things.
When I watch CNBC analysts and the Market people get doey eyed and upset because we will not trade with corrupt nations or because some war(Iraq) or strife(Darfur) is not going on somewhere, I feel so ashamed for our country. The Market does not own the country, and Americans and the world, especially the young, are getting tired of investing in paranoid old crony strategies from tired old crony policies. If the world needs it, we do too. Fix America first, before fixing other countries still resonates in both Centrist Liberals and Centrist Republicans. thats the answer to the Military protection question. What is the Military if it is not for the people, but ingaged in only special interests. We as a nation even without those in uniform would still back this country up. I'm tired of Presidents who hold our military on a pedastal of high priority like it is some sort of Nuclear Fail safe device. That is so McCarthyistic and 80s, and I don't think the backers of Obama, and even Edwards are going to put up with anymore. And from the looks of it, not even the centrist Republicans.
Love the military, i'm with you, hoorah, thats fine and all, but in all actuality, those crony policies and the money you would think is going to help our soldiers defend this country, is going right up the River.
And I believe Obama will change all that , or at least put us in the right direction by laying out beginning conensus. A big bang in our political landscape and a refreshed world realizing America isn't so bad after all.
"This is not a Cointree. This is a Country!
make a bumpersticker out of that.

I should note that I think the characterization of these clips of her as "angry" is pretty ridiculous. Maybe I just have a high tolerance for outspokenness, but Hillary was just firmly stating the argument for her in a way any candidate might be expected to. It's an unfair attack.

Now, this might be a fairer source of criticism: what is this shit all about?

Eli has some wonderful company in Chris Matthews:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01/09/hillary_nh/