US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2

[verte76]

CNN bores me. It's so repetitive.

 

[U2democrat]

sidenote: u2dem and i decided last night that we are going to submit a request to hold a debate. all candidates will be sitting on top of dunk tanks. anytime they go over their response time, they are plunged into a large tank filled with water and screaming eels.

There also might be itchy fingers on the trap doors when it comes to the top tier candidates...

Just you know, for, equal time....

 

[phillyfan26]

b) This (first 10 secs) is amazing

Agreed.

 

[EdgeIsTooSexy]

I like that idea.

I think Hillary should be dunked first

 

[INDY500]

I think Hillary should be dunked first

And if she floats...she must be a witch.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I dunno, I just think in a nomination race (for both parties) where the most interesting and less evil (read: authoritarian) candidates have been the non-major ones, Blitzer tried to set Obama and Clinton after each other for what seemed like 45 minutes before letting anyone else answer a question. I really hate mainstream US media at the moment.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Agreed.

Ya know, if Kucininich had a vote for every time I've heard someone say, "I agree with him but don't think he's electable...."

 

[Irvine511]

And if she floats...she must be a witch.

let's not give Rudy any ideas -- i'm sure he'd waterboard Hillary in the interest of national security, because if she isn't waterboarded, then terrorists are going to come to Iowa and kill every last farmer.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Well played

 

[phillyfan26]

Ya know, if Kucininich had a vote for every time I've heard someone say, "I agree with him but don't think he's electable...."

I really hate that. I think he's legitimate.

 

[redhotswami]

Ya know, if Kucininich had a vote for every time I've heard someone say, "I agree with him but don't think he's electable...."

precisely. i know plenty of people agree with him but are too chicken to vote for him. i mean it's obvious: he's electable if people vote for him.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, electable if America was 51% socialist, he's to the Democrats as Ron Paul is to the GOP - too extreme for the bulk and looses the margins that win elections. The value in such candidates is getting such ideas out there, although i'm sure that Cheney in a dress won't be any worse than Bush.

 

[BonosSaint]

precisely. i know plenty of people agree with him but are too chicken to vote for him. i mean it's obvious: he's electable if people vote for him.

I'm going through the tedious process of researching the candidates' actual voting records--mostly because I don't get inspired by candidates whose voting records don't support their election season speeches--and I've been pleased on many of Kucinich's votes--less than pleased on others. But in general, I find his votes in line with his rhetoric.

See, in honor of you guys, I checked him out first. I should know in time for registration deadline whether or not I really support someone enough to change from independent back to democrat in time for the primaries.

But to save me a little time and much tedium, can any of the Kucinich supporters direct me to information on how he intends to execute his wish lists. Being absolutely undecided, I have a ton of candidates to sort through and it appears to me that the debates are a waste of time right now.

 

[phillyfan26]

He had a specific plan for Iraq, if I recall. Like one of those step-by-step plans.

 

[BonosSaint]

Iraq certainly interests me. I'm equally interested in domestic issues.

Never mind, though. His website is fairly comprehensive for a first look.

 

[anitram]

precisely. i know plenty of people agree with him but are too chicken to vote for him. i mean it's obvious: he's electable if people vote for him.

I know plenty of people who agree with him and think his programs are unrealistic and impractical. Nothing chicken about them.

 

[phillyfan26]

I know plenty of people who agree with him and think his programs are unrealistic and impractical. Nothing chicken about them.

What specifically do they cite as unrealistic and impractical?

 

[anitram]

What specifically do they cite as unrealistic and impractical?

There are literally dozens.

Free university education.
Ending NAFTA.

Just two to get you started.

 

[redhotswami]

I know plenty of people who agree with him and think his programs are unrealistic and impractical. Nothing chicken about them.

then that is not in complete agreement. theres obviously nothing chicken about disagreeing with implementation. i didn't mean that. i really do know many people who wholeheartedly agree with everything in his platform. yet they are afraid to commit to that, because they say things like "oh it just won't happen in this generation" or...whatever excuse that sort of implies that it is impossible. all im saying is there is nothing wrong with pursuing your ideal. despite what the polls may say or what the media is trying to feed us. it is the primaries! as u.s. voting citizens we should go with who we want, who we truly believe is the closest match to what we want for the u.s. the time for compromise is in the presidential election, when the candidates for the parties have already been chosen. but for now, why hold back if it is something we really want?

those are the people i'm referring to.

 

[verte76]

precisely. i know plenty of people agree with him but are too chicken to vote for him. i mean it's obvious: he's electable if people vote for him.

I like Kucinich but I think Edwards is the most electable Democrat. I like Kucinich's position on health care.

 

[verte76]

There are literally dozens.

Free university education.
Ending NAFTA.

Just two to get you started.

They have free university education in Europe. Why not here?

 

[anitram]

They have free university education in Europe. Why not here?

They also have universal healthcare in Europe and many other things you don't and probably never will. Why not?

 

[anitram]

i really do know many people who wholeheartedly agree with everything in his platform. yet they are afraid to commit to that, because they say things like "oh it just won't happen in this generation" or...whatever excuse that sort of implies that it is impossible. all im saying is there is nothing wrong with pursuing your ideal. .

That's because unlike some of us, you've never actually lived under the leadership of somebody who had goals which were clearly unrealistic - and I don't mean Bush who was supported by half of the voters, I mean some fringe candidate who gets elected essentially on a whim. Let me explain to you then how that works (and those of us in Ontario can think back to the glorious Rae Days). Party gets elected on a platform of feel-good ideas that lots of people agree with in principle and see as their ideal. Party then spends several years bogged down trying to implement ideas that will never get legislated so that in effect they are doing absolutely no governing. Except the handful of things that they actually do pass which then the public realizes were impractical to begin with because they are either costing the system too much money, putting too much burden on subsequent voting generations, or are just plain inefficient and ineffective. So the party falls in polls as people really start to form buyer's remorse, and then the public revolts by usually electing the furthest right-wing party following them (or furthest left-wing on the flip side) in order to restore "balance" whether it be fiscally or socially. So then the pendulum swings to the other extreme until the public gets sick of that too, and finally we go back to some centrist party that will keep the peace for a good couple of decades before people get antsy again. That, in short, is what happens when somebody like Kucinich is elected. Which is why to me, it is utterly pointless to vote for him to LEAD a nation. He's a good leader of a minority party which has some say and serves as the moral compass, but unfortunately for you, the thought of anything more than 2 parties in the US is apparently insane, so that's why he'll really never get anywhere at all.

I mean, take the NAFTA example and if somebody can explain to me why in the world he would want to get out of an agreement that really ostensibly only fully benefits the Americans, I'd love to hear it. As usual, when the US enters some kind of international trade agreement, they tailor it to themselves, and NAFTA is no different. Canada and Mexico signed what is arguably the best deal they could get (arguably); the US signed what is the best deal for them. And so he wants to get out of it really for no good economic reason whatsoever which would cost you billions over the longterm, but hey when he starts talking about the evils of globalization, it makes us all fuzzy on the inside, doesn't it?

I've already discussed the university issue so I won't get into that again.

 

[Vincent Vega]

They have free university education in Europe. Why not here?

Yes, but look at where we are standing. In Germany, public universities are vastly underfunded and can't compete with those unis in England, the US, Japan, or even with the top Russian universities. Our equipment is among the worst in Europe.

We have only a handful of private universities, which are pretty small and new, and some research institutes. Those can compete with the rest of the world, but the public universities that do the education can't.

University education should be affordable, that's for sure. But it also should meet some standards, which we simply can't. But to stay independent it's extremely difficult to receive donations from private people, organisations or companies. It's always viewed very suspiciously because people immediately say, "Well, they give you money and now want something for it in return."

But the state, on the other hand, cannot give millions over millions to all the universities in Germany. That's why we noe have this "excellence initiative", where some universities get selected as being excellent in their respective fields, and they receive funds for that. But this initiative is laughable at best.

Free university education is only possible if you agree to lower your standard. But do you want that? Certainly no.
I would say, if Kucinich simply pronounced to lower tuition fees at least for public universities, so that you don't have to take loans worth a single-family house, that would be something you could talk about. But to lower those fees to essentially zero is not realistic.

 

[CTU2fan]

I mean, take the NAFTA example and if somebody can explain to me why in the world he would want to get out of an agreement that really ostensibly only fully benefits the Americans, I'd love to hear it. As usual, when the US enters some kind of international trade agreement, they tailor it to themselves, and NAFTA is no different. Canada and Mexico signed what is arguably the best deal they could get (arguably); the US signed what is the best deal for them. And so he wants to get out of it really for no good economic reason whatsoever which would cost you billions over the longterm, but hey when he starts talking about the evils of globalization, it makes us all fuzzy on the inside, doesn't it?

NAFTA is great for American business, for the American worker? Not so much. I'm guessing that's the basis for Kucinich's plan to get out of it.

But I agree with your larger point re: the practicality of a Kucinich presidency. But the question is, IF Kucinich were president and unable to enact the changes he ran on, do you label him a failue or do you blame the legislature and their goal - maintaining the status quo? For various reasons our government is set up in a way that only allows change at a glacial pace.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I missed the debate because I had a day from hell that day. Did they ask the guys if they prefer boxers or briefs? Is CNN MTV now?

atlantic.com

Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated With CNN Response)

16 Nov 2007 11:21 am

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.

So what happened?

Writes Luisa:

"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question."

Rivals to Clinton believe that the debate audience had a pro-Clinton tilt. UNLV was responsible for distributing most of the tickets.

In a separate post, Luisa provides the question she wanted to ask:

Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What will you [Sen. Clinton] do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?

Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.

"When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understanding is that the [diamond v. pearls] questions was her other question," Feist said. "She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate."

 

[diamond]

it was a very lame debate, w/wolf coddling hilary thru out.

dbs

 

[CTU2fan]

If she didn't want to ask the question she should have told CNN to stick it.

 

[diamond]

Chuck Norris supports Mike:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=724

 

[phillyfan26]

it was a very lame debate, w/wolf coddling hilary thru out.

dbs

I'd say Wolf was more like an interferer the whole time.

He sucked pretty much with everything he did.

Brian Williams FTW