I did something I haven’t done in a while. I watched the democrats debate last night, hoping that perhaps they wold be questioned very closely as to how they would pursue thier promise to John Edwards.
Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spent their last debate before next week’s Super Tuesday contests pointing out differences on Iraq, health care and the economy — but without all of the finger-pointing that’s marked their campaigns.
The exchange was in sharp contrast to previous debates because of the absence of political sniping, yet was one of the most substantive policy discussions yet in the race for the nomination.
I’ll be honest here. I am still left wanting. For me, and this is my opinion, neither of them has made a convincing case as to why I should support either of them. My original assessment that both are taking baby steps to move a semi-progressive agenda has not changed.
Both still fall short from Edwards platform, even though they have both tried to emulate his platform, in tiny, halting baby steps. And it’s a damn shame, because it’s the people that will ultimately continue to suffer. Krugman understands.
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.
But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.
We are left with a symbolic vote rather than a vote for real progress at a time when progress is needed most.
At this point I want to know from both Clinton and Obama, the following:
How are both of you going to fulfill your promise to Edwards and make poverty a central issue to your campaigns?
How are you going to reign in the excesses of large energy companies, that are posting record profits while people struggle. (
Now, I realize that many people in the US use the idea that folks in the UK are paying £5 per gallon, but at our $3 per gallon, that translates roughly to £6 per gallon, so drop the strawman assertions that UK pays more.Sorry, was thinking backwards) Specifically, I want to know if Obama will change his former stance of allowing energy companies to pad their bills, particularly as Shell posted profits that increased 9% during 2007.Clinton why in the world would you support the continued production and use of cluster bombs? Will you change your stance on that to protect human life?
That’s for starters.
$3 per gallon = £1.5 per gallon
I watched the debate and I was impressed! Obama is a class act. Highly intelligent, truly insightful, witty, charming, gracious, and DIGNIFIED! He seems to exist in a state of relaxed intensity. You see the wheels churning in that mind of his, he takes his jabs, and he maintains an almost absolutely steely resolve. This man is no pussy cat, but he is a gentleman!
While Hillary Clinton was very polished and slick, as always, she struck me as cold, insincere, and untrustworthy. She spoke with authority about healthcare, immigration, and the poor, but used divisive/misleading scapegoating techniques to make her case. Also, she claimed to want to run “on her own merits”, but constantly tried to make the case for her husband’s administration and invoked his name to make the biggest “zinger” of the night, the now-infamous comment about a Clinton needed to clean up after a Bush.
What I mostly see/hear from Hillary Clinton is opportunism, greed, and hunger for power/influence. Of course, she can do a better job than Bush, but that’s setting the bar too low. She wants to restore “The Clinton Dynasty” at a time when it is more important than ever to LOOK FORWARD and not look back through rose-colored lenses and long for the “way we were.”
Although she is the more slick/polished candidate, she lacks Obama’s sincerity and likeability, clear-cut superior stance on Iraq, and ability to inspire and unify the country. McCain and the Republicans, once united, will destroy her (she will be THEIR uniting force). Barack keeps improving and he is the only one who can defeat the moderate and soon-to-be very popular McCain! The Republican base may not love him now – but let him face off against Hillary – and that party will snap right back together in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort of way like we’ve never seen before! EVERY Democrat better recognize that, or they will be in for another rude awakening, with no one to blame but themselves!
I see or hear nothing in Obama but fluff. He is the liberal’s guy to have a drink with, the way Bush was the redneck’s guy to have a beer with. The bar is different, the drink is different, the people look diverse, but still it is just people having a drink, nothing else.
This piece says what I think about Obama:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?storyID=15379
John, you’re right. I’m thinking backwards.
I have some crafting tools that I need to order (and that are not easily found in the US, but tons of stores in the UK carry) and I’ve been sticker shocked at the exchange rate. 1.96742 US dollars to each British pound.
Nevertheless, these energy companies are biliking people where ever they can, and when they post profits like that, I consider it to be price gouging.
Kitty, good article, thanks for posting it. For the record, this is also what I heard back when he ran for the senate. I just do not find him genuinely interested in the people.
That’s not to say that I’ll back Clinton, either. I have problems with her, as well.
Sticker shock? Try visiting your people in England. It is a nightmare. To plan, I have to think how much money I need then double it.
Kitty, I couldn’t imagine a trip there on the current exchange rate. Yikes!
[...] Archcrone on the presidential race. [...]
If someone can only see fluff when they look at Obama’s policies, I suggest they learn how to read or get treatment for their learning disorder. Obama has directly challenged Clinton both on the issues and on leadership. As I see it, it all comes down to who you believe has your interests in mind.
Poverty-Obama wasn’t born an aristocrat and certainly spent his time in the trenches advocating for people in the inner city.
Policy-On health care, Obama wants to make health insurance more affordable but respects my right to be an autonomous citizen. I do not want my choices mandated as the Clinton plan suggests. On Iraq, who really believes that Clinton was hoodwinked? She jumped on the go-to-war bandwagon without considering the implications or consequences and now can’t bring herself to admit she made a mistake. There distinct differences in other areas of policy that makes Obama stand out. Personally, talking directly to a potential enemy makes sense to me. It cuts out the possibility for gaming, suspicion and problems associated with going through third parties like the ones surrounding the the multi-party talks with North Korea.
When you open your eyes and look beyond the slick Clinton packaging, Obama clearly stands out as a champion of the people-including those people that John Edwards fights for. The greatest distinction between Clinton and Obama is that Obama represents a clear breath of fresh air in a stale and dysfunctional political environment.
oh, the brits, “…that seedy old freak ted kennedy.” and he’s one of the dems’ leading lights. we are fading fast in the world.
cannot believe i have to decide by tuesday morning between two smart lawyers who represent a leap forward for american political scene but each is so wanting. obama really falls short on health care issue. not sure i believe any of the party regulars about getting us out of iraq soon.
sigh.
BobW, please note that this blog, and myself specifically, has not endorsed Clinton. Nor am I of the opinion that Clinton has policies better than Obama. My opinion is that neither of these candidates are putting forth policies that will better the people. Please, don’t tell me to “open my eyes,” my eyes are wide open and the platform Obama is running on falls very short of a truly progressive agenda that will truly benefit the majority of people in this country.
From my experience, as it relates to Obama specifically, he talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. I came to this conclusion from his senatorial campaign and subsequent votes in congress. In short, I find him lacking in substance, and quite frankly, that is exhibited in his plan especially when compared to Edwards plan.
The fact is, I have argued over and over again, that substance matters. I have argued that everyone needs to consider the issues, over electability or a symbolic vote. What we have ended up with is the “American Idolization” of the US Presidency, and that makes me want to vomit.
I agree with Morris, “ It is a shame that 5 states who have early primaries, and 5 states alone can have such a impact on who our final presidential candidates are, and ultimately the final candidate for each party.”
Media bias in this campaign is undeniable and likely contributed significantly to disappointing primary results for Senator Edwards. His withdrawal is a great loss.
However, Senators Clinton and Obama now provide the most hope for the nation in 2008. Their issues are quite similar but for two, health care, and the vote that provided President Bush the OK for initiating a preemptive war, something Senator Edwards also mistakenly provided. We all now know that giving President Bush any opportunity act as Commander and Chief was faulty, but after all, he was elected Commander and Chief. Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards both support a mandatory health plan for all whereas Senator Obama supports a voluntary health plan for all. In states that require proof of auto insurance and safety inspection, how many people would opt out of both if proof were not required when acquiring or renewing a license tag. Senator Obama is wrong in his belief that everyone will want and voluntarily purchase his version of health care. Believing this he will not demonstrate sound judgement on “day one”, his other strongly stated distinction with Senator Clinton. It is disturbing to hear that the Obama campaign is distributing information strikingly similar to that used by opponents of Senator Clinton’s universal health care efforts in the early 90’s. Using only partial and misleading information in an attempt to scare voters is a tactic expected from republican strategists. Senator Obama should avoid such tactics.
Regardless of which of these two candidates wins the nomination, he/she will get my vote. Not voting “to make a point” accomplishes nothing. Senator Clinton will get my vote in the primary. I too hope Senator Edwards will be part of the ticket.
I agree with Morris, “ It is a shame that 5 states who have early primaries, and 5 states alone can have such a impact on who our final presidential candidates are, and ultimately the final candidate for each party.”
Media bias in this campaign is undeniable and likely contributed significantly to disappointing primary results for Senator Edwards. His withdrawal is a great loss.
However, Senators Clinton and Obama now provide the most hope for the nation in 2008. Their issues are quite similar but for two, health care, and the vote that provided President Bush the OK for initiating a preemptive war, something Senator Edwards also mistakenly provided. Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards both support a mandatory health plan for all whereas Senator Obama supports a voluntary health plan for all. In states that require proof of auto insurance and safety inspection, how many people would opt out of both if proof were not required when acquiring or renewing a license tag. Senator Obama is wrong in his belief that everyone will want and voluntarily purchase his version of health care. Believing this he will not demonstrate sound judgement on “day one”, his other strongly stated distinction with Senator Clinton. It is disturbing to hear that the Obama campaign is distributing information strikingly similar to that used by opponents of Senator Clinton’s universal health care efforts in the early 90’s. Using only partial and misleading information in an attempt to scare voters is a tactic expected from republican strategists. Senator Obama should avoid such tactics.
Regardless of which of these two candidates wins the nomination, he/she will get my vote. Not voting “to make a point” accomplishes nothing. Senator Clinton will get my vote in the primary. I too hope Senator Edwards will be part of the ticket.
Personally, I find it hard to trust Senator Clinton. The fact that she wavered on her platform about the drivers’ liscenses for illegal immigrants disturbs me. What if we find out that she is going to waver during her presidential term (if she were to get elected). I am able to believe Obama in his issues because I know he has been out there with the people, talking to them, learning about them. He is very calm, poised, and professional during debates. My dream ticket would be an Obama-Edwards!
ok, i heard something about mike huckabee today and i was wanting to confirm if it was true. i heard that if he were elected into office he would want all schools to teach creationism!! is this true?? i am in no way supporting mike huckabee, i’m just wondering how someone could think that the country would fall for that! if anyone can confirm this info, please tell! thanx!
He kind of sort of said that on GMA a while back.