An excellent snippet from last night’s debate
We at RT have not been as supportive of Hillary as we have of Obama and Edwards, it’s fair to say.  But I do think that she sincerely believes her approach is the best one for the country. She says her piece pretty well about this in the following clip (from TPM):
Yeah, that was a good moment for her. At the beginning, I was a little worried for her, because she rambled through her first response like a zombie. Little wonder: they’re all completely worn out by the campaigning.
She had another really good moment when that idiot reporter asked her why people don’t like her. BTW, what a strange and winding question that was, eh? He talked through three subjects and then at the last minute, asked about a fourth. Dolt.
How about Gibson’s questions, which seemed to attempt to attack candidates in various ways instead of letting them expand on issues? The youth question, presumably directed at Obama, the insider questions, are you nice? WTF? And when he claimed Washington can’t change, I wished somebody had said there have been radical changes in the last 8 years. So it’s clear a president makes a difference. And it’s clear that not all change is good.
My wife was complaining about the same thing. We’re both convinced that Charlie Gibson is a Republican. I mean, he asked four “broad questions” of both the Democratic and Republican candidates, for a total of eight. Out of those eight, five or six were foreign policy questions and one was a BS “principles” question that no one really answered except Ron Paul. One started to be about Social Security and Medicaid and turned into a completely unrelated question.
I guess “broad” is in the eye of the beholder. . .
I thought Hillary’s response was excellent with one exception: when she said something about being the element of change for “thirty-five years” that put a damper on her claim to change in my mind. She should just focus on the changes she’s made during her tenure as Senator.
Anything prior to that makes it seem that her changes haven’t been good enough, given how many millions still don’t have health care, and it smacks of claiming change occurred during her 8 years as First Lady, which turns a lot of people off since it’s not an elected position.
First off, I’d be proud to pull the lever for any of the Three Dem front runners - Richardson makes me nervous.
We at RT have supported all candidates fairly equally here - I’m assuming exile’s comment about not supporting Hillary is pertaining to the commenters on this blog.
Nevertheless we will need to select one of them. Hopefully, we will be voting for one of them as opposed to voting against the others.
I liked the part where the other Candidates held up legislation they had pushed or passed (Edwards Health Care) (Obama - Ethics, Energy) as some all mightly saving piece of legilsation. The Hillary poked holes in their arguments - Edwards Health bill didn’t make it past the house or Obama’s ethics bill with no lobbyist lunch means lobbists can feed Congressman standing up or His vote on the Energy Bill is still laden with Tax breaks for oil companies. (it’s all from memory so there might be a detail or two off)
My quick takes as I think of the candidates.
I thought Hillary did well last night. Love her or hate her she delivered her message.
I actually Edwards was on fire when he was discussing how personal this is to him. That part resonated with me.
I felt generally, Obama was lecturing.
I always feel that Obama is lecturing. The strange thing is: people seem to like that.
I don’t like his lecturing and it goes to the heart of Hillary’s comments…you can speak about change…but we need someone that can deliver change, not talk about it. Quite frankly, Obama doesn’t have a long enough history and voting record for me to consider him as my choice. A Clinton-Edwards ticket or a Clinton-Biden ticket would be awesome.
A perspective from New Hampshire voters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apv5KWHgXTE
[...] up on the last post, I’d like to make a point about Hillary that is of the sort I usually avoid.ÂÂ [...]
Why does it seem that when people discuss Presidential candidates, they pick at personalities and, in the case of Clinton, dwell in the past. A comment was made about how the Clinton’s “had their chance”…this country did quite well thank you very much under the Clinton Administration.
As I go into choosing a candidate, I’m looking at the past, but concentrating on the FUTURE. Our country is in deep and concerning trouble. I have to look at each of them and decide which one is going to be able to solve the problems created by the current Administration, and at the same time, solve the problems on the domestic front that are growing at a fevered rate.
Some have said that electing Hillary Clinton is the equivalent of getting 2 presidents for the price of one.
When I look at the rankings and the reasons why Bill Clinton is looked at as one of the top 5 Presidents in modern history, I can’t help but wonder if two for the price of one isn’t’ a fair statement. Bill Clinton does have the respect of foreign policy makers. Hillary Clinton does have the experience to hit the road running on day one. The environment and health care are both important issues, and I believe she will tap into the knowledge and passion of Al Gore if elected. She paid her dues and them some in wanting to get a national form of health care.
I just have a hard time voting for someone NOW who does not have experience. Change is one thing, but experience at this level of office is critical.
I’m just not getting that from Obama. I like Edwards and Clinton, but I’m still mulling things through. I heard a broadcast on Air America where they were stating that Republicans were caucusing for Obama - that he’s the man the GOP wants the Dems to run. So then it prompts the race question, vs. the woman question, vs. many questions.
The candidate HAS to be electable, first and foremost. The candidate has to have a track record of experience that meets the criteria of the office given the state of the country and the world.
So many questions - so little time - but I have to agree with Stlo7 that we are lucky to have so many QUALIFIED Democrats running that it makes this decision that much harder. Compared to 8 years ago, that’s quite a statement.
The two Republican strategists on Meet The Press were falling all over themselves to annoint Obama and McCain today.
They’ve been doing that all along.
I have mixed feelings about the punditocracy’s (David Broder, David Brooks, etc.) love for Obama. On the one hand, I despise these pundits from the very bottom of my heart and their support for Obama makes me suspicious. On the other hand, maybe it’s to Obama’s credit that he can win these guys over since they are (unfortunately) influential.
The more I think about it the more I want a president who will try to raze the entirety of DC and start from scratch. That means Edwards.
Mrs. Clinton says she’s taken on the pharmaceutical companies?
So far all she’s taken on from them is their cash. How can we expect her to really take them on when she has become so beholden to them?
I think her cattiness in today’s [Sunday] interviews regarding Obama speaks volumes.
Regarding “sincerity”.
“Sincerity is not in itself a virture: some kinds are so confused that they are worse than lies. Not the language of the heart but merely that of clear thinking is what we need today.”
Albert Camus