Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"False hopes"??? What kind of strategy is it to tell voters to not get their hopes up?
Does she seriously think it's a winning strategy to tell voters not to expect very much? I can't imagine that Bill came up with this line. She's a naturally uninspiring speechmaker; running around telling everyone "Don't get your hopes up" only compounds her weaknesses.
Senator Clinton, I already have George W. Bush to not get my hopes up.
Last night the debate competed with the NFL playoffs. That Washington (lost) may be an omen. But, I think one football analogy may be appropriate.
There are coaches who know the game and all of its intricacies in great detail and who can draw remarkable plays on a blackboard using "X" and "O" representing players. But they fail to inspire and lose. They are often called X's and O's coaches which is a code term for lack of the ability to stir tye emotions of the team.
I think Hillary is the ultimate Xs and Os candidate. She is an extremely impressive discussing the details and fine points of policy. But the Presidency is more than Xs and Os. The successful Presidents are those who go beyond the details and inspire - and surround themselves with able advisors.
Some presidnetial examples examples are Reagan, JFK, FDR and Lincoln.
Reagan did not inspire me, but he certainly inspired the Right. FDR surrounded himself with able men and women, but what lifted America were his words. The same was true of JFK.
Frankly, I'm more into Edwards than Obama but the one thing that Obama said that was dead-on was that "words count." More than his military strategy, Lincoln won the war and defined America by his words. The Gettysburg address and the Declaration of Independence are burned into our national psyche and they are nothing but words.
Hillary is a brilliant woman, but she is so lost in the details of policy that she never developed the ability to inspire through words.
Given the national doldrums we are in, we need a President who can, first of all, inspire.
JCK
http://johnklotz.blogspot.com
I don't know if hope is something I need from a candidate. Hope is one of the things that certainly keeps the human race chugging along against all odds, but hope is no predicator of outcome.
When buying a car I can hope I made the right purchase, I certainly do not want the dealer telling me to have hope I've made the right choice.
I do not want the presidential candidate of hope, I want the candidate of getting the fukkin job done while aligning as closely as possible to my perception of the nations priorities.
Candidate of Change? All of the candidates are running for the highest LEADERSHIP position in the world. If they're not running to change things what the hell are they running for? The question is what the fuk they want to change and how are they going to change it.
I really do not understand elections. Couldn't we just simplify things and have the candidates butt heads like rams do in order choose leaders?
I am a New Hampshire Democrat, and I went into the debate leaning towards Obama. Edward has always seemed too slick to me. I feel Hillary may be electable, but would rule as a very divisive figure, and that's a problem for me. Richardson, honestly, is an embarrassment. Although he may have been a decent civil servant governor for all I know, extemporaneously he is a nightmare--not Presidential material at all.
I guess I was disappointed. Although Obama gives great speeches, he debates poorly and does not seem to have much to say for himself other than he wants to "unite" everyone.
I was angry at Hillary's anger. It could have been a powerful moment if it had been justified. But to compare her "record" to anyone else's on the stage was completely disingenuous. She wasn't elected to any office before this first term in the Senate; she picked and chosen her issues--hasn't even had to APPLY and be hired for a job in many many years. She is the one who needs a "reality check."
Edwards (who is, indeed, slick) has, like Obama, lived a life that reflects what he believes. He actually reminded me a bit of Tony Blair last night.
I don't have a clue who I'm voting for on Tuesday.
Nice rubber and glue report!
I don't get this meme that Barack Obama is "too nice." Where is it coming from?
One of the first times that Obama made me sit up and take notice is when John Howard, then-prime minister of Australia said "If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."
To which Obama responded that if John Howard really wanted to do something to win the War on Terror, he might consider sending more than 1,000 Australian troops to Iraq.
It was the perfect answer and it shut Howard up. All too often, Democrats seem incapable of offering clear, common-sense rebuttals to their critics. There's always some obvious rejoinder that you wish they'd make, but somehow they always manage to be too muddleheaded and/or cowardly to make it.
But Obama seems to have a talent for cutting through the bullshit and saying what needs to said. Maybe if Edwards had taken a page from the Obama book, he might have beaten Dick Cheney in the 2004 vice presidential debate (how does a former trial attorney manage to lose a debate to one of the least popular figures in American politics?)
Ok, I confess to having fallen asleep in front of the tube showing the Democrats debating last night. It was late and I was bored beyond tears listening to the juvenile hair-splitting and quibbling about when who said what. Sorry if substantive positions were enunciated in the second half; most of those watching would have turned it off or fallen asleep by then anyway.
Too bad Dennis Kucinich was un-Democratically excluded, as he is an articulate speaker with firm convictions and positions that differ sharply from the corporate-friendly mush the "front-runners" are all spouting. The only candidate allowed in the debates (the Republican side this time) who recognizes that we already live in a fascist state is Ron Paul, who said so Friday night on Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
