US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2

[verte76]

Originally posted by anitram


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]

Originally posted by verte76


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]

Originally posted by unico

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]

Originally posted by verte76


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]

Originally posted by anitram


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.cf...ew&Blog_id=724

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by diamond
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

[MrsSpringsteen]

The video below has been submitted for the Republican CNN YouTube debates by a couple whose son was killed because he was gay.

We're Lynn and Pat Mulder of Auburndale, Florida. Our son Ryan was murdered in March because he was gay. We would like to ask the presidential candidates how will they work to promote the value of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC0kPPlU4DI

[MrsSpringsteen]

NY Post

November 18, 2007 -- You know what we need in the White House? A bitch.

We need a bitch facing down terrorists, Iran and Congress. A bitch to order around the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Come to think of it, there's a bitch right now trying to save Pakistan. Golda Meir, Queen Elizabeth, Margaret Thatcher - all great leaders. All bitches.

It's unlikely, of course, that the voter who asked John McCain “how we going to beat the bitch?" this week in South Carolina considered this. She meant it as an insult, and McCain, stupidly or ignorantly, called it a good question. When asked about it, Sen. Trent Lott, classy guy that he is, said, “the witch?"

My advice for Hillary Clinton? Take it as a compliment. I'm a bitch and proud - a Babe In Total Control of Herself.

The reality is that every woman who has ambition, business acumen and an independent way of thinking - the very qualities we admire in men - has been called a bitch.

It's sad the word needs to be used at all, considering how insulting it is. A female dog. When you actually think about what the term means, what it implies, it's amazing how much it's slipped into regular conversation. Rappers toss it off in lyrics; Britney introduces herself on her new album with the term; they don't even bother bleeping it out on television. Despite what Isiah Thomas said in his sex harassment deposition, no one - black or white - should be able to say it.

That a woman would be the one to ask the question of McCain shows how robbed of import “bitch" has become, otherwise she would have realized how the term could boomerang. If the voter can call Clinton a bitch, it's license for others to do the same to her.

If we can't stamp it out, then we must embrace it. Ten years ago, Meredith Brooks had a hit singing “I'm a bitch," and since then, smart women have known that a man who calls them a bitch is only demonstrating his own inadequacies.

Case in point: Hillary herself, who wisely said nothing during the McCain debacle. In proper form, she subscribed to the Hollywood axiom, “No audience, no show." She's nobody's poodle.

But if I may, let me offer some more advice to Clinton - a little etiquette for bitches, if you will:

Remember that each time you are called a bitch on the campaign trail, you are helping women across America. As long as they are calling you a bitch, it means that some other poor woman is getting a break from being called one.

Lead with compassion for your male counterparts. Many still suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and night sweats, even though it's been decades since the feminist movement.

Never let them get under your skin. And if they do, never give them the satisfaction of knowing it.

Wear skirts often. It'll flummox them even more.

And one final word from the trenches. Being a woman who is running for office is sometimes threatening to those who aren't used to seeing women be productive outside the kitchen and the laundry room. The good news is, they'll adjust. Ain't that a bitch?

Sherry Argov is the author of “Why Men Marry Bitches."

[Canadiens1131]

Wow, so Huckabee has a Chuck Norris Facts campaign ad. I, I really don't know what to say.

[MrsSpringsteen]

In other news Hasselhoff has endorsed Mitt Romney

[MrsSpringsteen]

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Tuesday told high school students that when he was their age he was hardly a model student, experimenting with illegal drugs and drinking alcohol.

Obama stopped by a study hall at Manchester Central High School and answered students' questions about the war in Iraq and his education plan. But when an adult asked about his time as a student, Obama spoke bluntly.

"I will confess to you, I was kind of a goof-off in high school. My Mom reminds me of that," said Obama, an Illinois Democrat who grew up in Hawaii

"You know, I made some bad decisions that I've actually written about. You know, got into drinking. I experimented with drugs," he said. "There was a whole stretch of time that I didn't really apply myself a lot. It wasn't until I got out of high school and went to college that I started realizing, 'Man, I wasted a lot of time.'"

Obama has written about his drug use in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father."

"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final fatal role of the young would be black man," Obama wrote. Mostly he smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, Obama wrote, but occasionally he would snort cocaine when he could afford it.

Drugs, Obama wrote, were a way he "could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory."

Obama told students he developed his sense of social justice at college—he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before transferring to Columbia University in New York. Before he got to Columbia, he said, he lived a naive life.

"I went to high school in Hawaii, so there was a lot of opportunity to goof off because the weather is really good all the time," he said. "I did well in school, but I didn't really apply myself. I did what I needed to do to get into college and it came fairly easily to me."

His biggest interest was in sports and girls.

"I was big on basketball. We were state champs. I thought I was better than I was," said Obama, who finds time on the campaign trail to still play a pickup game.

He then added: "I thought about girls a lot, I won't lie."

[MrsSpringsteen]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats and Republicans alike have strong opinions about who has the best chance of capturing the presidency in 2008 - Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, that is - but that's not necessarily the candidate they'd rather go bowling with, take along on a family vacation or even vote for.

An in-depth survey of more than 2,000 people offers a window into the thinking of Americans as they look far beyond electability in making their choices for president - grappling with matters of personality, policy and religion in sorting through the candidates.

Overall, the poll finds, Democrats are weighing personal traits more heavily than policy positions this election season; Republicans are putting greater emphasis on policy. The survey by The Associated Press and Yahoo News is a departure from traditional polling in that it will track the opinions of the same people across the country as their beliefs develop and change through the campaign.

The interplay of the personal and the political doesn't always make for neat and tidy decision-making.

Take self-described die-hard Republican Donald Stokes. The 48-year-old steelworker from Waterbury, Conn., would pick Democrat John Edwards if he could take a candidate along on his family vacation. He likes Edwards' personality and his family values. But he supports Giuliani for president, largely because of the former New York mayor's leadership after the 9-11 terror attacks in 2001.

"I'd rather have a president that's going to get in somebody's face if he's got a problem with them or another country," says Stokes.

Charolette Thompson, a 48-year-old retired landscaper from Federal Way, Wash., is a Democrat backing Barack Obama for president. But she would probably pick "the Mormon guy" - that would be Republican Mitt Romney - for a bowling partner.

Jasmine Zoschak, a 30-year-old physician's assistant from Milford, Pa., would love to see a woman in the White House - "just not the female that's running this year." She's backing Republican Mike Huckabee for president because of his positive outlook and opposition to abortion, but she'd rather invite Obama to dinner.

In this first gut-check of the polling series, the voters signaled there's still hope for candidates playing catchup: Half of likely Democratic voters said they could change their minds about who should win their party's nomination, as did two-thirds of Republicans.

Ask Democrats to size up their party's candidates on personal qualities, and it's easy to see why Clinton is leading national polls of Democrats. She is the candidate most often seen as strong, experienced, decisive, compassionate. Looking for strength, for example, 78 percent of Democrats see the quality in Clinton, 61 percent find it in Obama, 56 percent in Edwards.

The picture is less clear-cut when it comes to ethics and honesty, where Clinton and Obama run about even.

Which Democrat is judged the most likable? None has a clear advantage among Democratic voters, with Clinton, Obama and Edwards running about even. Among all voters, however, Obama has the edge.

It is a measure of how polarizing Clinton can be that she is the both the voters' favored bowling or vacation companion and the one most often ruled out.

Irene Soria, a 60-year-old Democrat from Tulare, Calif., says she's backing Clinton because "she knows how to play Washington. ... The other two, Edwards and Obama, seem kind of weak to me."

Likability, Soria says, is over-rated. A lot of people thought they could have a beer with George W. Bush, she said, but "look at all the things he's done to the United States. He hasn't done much good."

When Republican voters size up the GOP candidates, Giuliani claims the advantage on a host of personal qualities. He is the GOP candidate most often seen as decisive, strong and compassionate. But, just as for Clinton, ethics and honesty are a potential soft spot. Some 59 percent of GOP voters see Sen. John McCain as ethical, compared with 54 percent for Giuliani, 45 percent for Fred Thompson and 42 percent for Romney. On honesty, McCain and Giuliani run about even.

Which Republican is the most likable? Giuliani gets the nod, both from GOP voters and among voters overall.

Hold a sheer popularity contest, pitting the most likable Democrat vs. the best-liked Republican, and it would be Obama over Giuliani, 54 percent to 46 percent.

Ask voters which qualities are most important, though, and they put likability well down the list. They attach far more importance to being honest, ethical, decisive and strong.

The AP-Yahoo News survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, also asked voters to shine the spotlight in the other direction, to evaluate some of their own qualities.

It turns out that supporters of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are the most likely to be happy. Huckabee has a relatively high proportion of support among Evangelicals, who tend to be happier than most people.

Among Democrats, supporters of Obama and Edwards are more likely to say they are very happy than are Clinton's backers. Her supporters include more lower-income and less-educated voters, who tend to be less happy.

The voters do own up to some reservations about the age, gender and religion of certain candidates, but some also manage to swallow their concerns. Nearly 60 percent of 71-year-old John McCain's supporters say they have at least some reservations about supporting a candidate who is over 70. About 30 percent of Romney's supporters have qualms about voting for a Mormon. Fifteen percent of those who support thrice-married Giuliani have reservations about someone who is divorced.

On the Democratic side, 7 percent of Clinton's supporters report some reservations about voting for a woman.

The numbers show a significant share of respondents resisting the pack mentality. Fully half of Obama's supporters and a third of Edwards' backers think Clinton is the Democrat with the best chance of winning next November. On the Republican side, a third or more of the voters supporting McCain, Thompson and Romney think Giuliani has a better chance of winning.

Who would win right now? When an unidentified Democratic nominee is pitted against an unidentified Republican, the Democrat gets 42 percent of voters, the Republican 27 percent and another 27 percent don't know who they'd vote for.

The survey of 2,230 adults was conducted Nov. 2-12 by Knowledge Networks and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. The survey included 1,049 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 points, and 827 Republicans, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.4 points. Unlike most Internet polls, this one is nationally representative because people are first contacted using traditional telephone polling methods, and are then followed using online interviews. People selected for the study who do not already have Internet access are provided with Internet access for free.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah, I never got the whole thing of voting for somebody based on whether or not you could hang out with them, either. Much as I love my family and friends, and enjoy hanging out with them, I wouldn't look to most of them when thinking about who our next president should be.

I'm glad that people seem to be focusing more on the issues and the candidates' leadership abilities this time around...hopefully that will come through in the election next year.

Angela

[MrsSpringsteen]

examiner.com

DeLay Knocks GOP: ‘The leadership just isn’t getting it’
November 20

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay may not be in a leadership position on Capitol Hill anymore, but that doesn't mean he can't weigh in on the current GOP leadership.

DeLay told Yeas & Nays that Republicans in Congress are "looking for something to believe in" and "they're not getting it out of this Republican leadership. … The leadership just isn't getting it."

"They're looking for some backbone," said DeLay, who also chimed in on the 2008 election. He said the Republican party is "going to get our clocks cleaned in 2008" and unequivocally said that "Hillary [Clinton] will be the next president." Which ought to give DeLay’s newest projects, the Coalition for a Conservative Majority and a consulting firm called First Principles, LLC, plenty to do.

DeLay gave us is his dour assessment at a book party for former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, which was held at the Georgetown home of former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman

[MrsSpringsteen]

Chicago, IL — Rudy Giuliani declared that Americans should not expect a “pretense of perfection” from candidates running for office and says he respects Barack Obama’s “honesty” for discussing his previous drug use with a group of high schoolers today.

The Illinois Senator is receiving criticism from Mitt Romney, among others, for opening up and discussing past mistakes during a town hall at a Manchester, NH High School Tuesday.

“I made some bad decisions that I’ve written about, there were times when I got into drinking and experimented with drugs.. there was a whole stretch of time when i didn’t really apply myself a lot,” Obama told the group.

Giuliani said he believes Obama’s topic of conversation was completely appropriate.

“I respect his honesty in doing that. I think that one of the things we need from our people who are running for office is not this pretense of perfection,” Giuliani said. “The reality is all of us that run for public office, whether its governor, legislator, mayor, president–we are all human beings. If we haven’t made mistakes don’t vote for us cause we got some big ones that are gonna happen in the future and we wont know how to handle them.”

The former NYC mayor has been forthright about admitting his own mistakes during the campaign–most recently dogged by his connection to indicted former NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik–even noting in two recent television ads that he is not perfect.

But fellow Republican contender Mitt Romney feels differently, saying Obama committed a “huge error.”

“It’s just not a good idea for people running for President of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, ‘well I can do that too and become President of the United States,’” Romney told an Iowa audience today. “I think that was a huge error by Barack Obama…it is just the wrong way for people who want to be the leader of the free world.”

[verte76]

Yeah, likeability is overrated. George Bush seems like a friendly enough guy, but he's a terrible president.