Things not discussed - and more - last night's debate
By: teacherken
Published On: 1/22/2008 9:10:24 AM
crossposted from Daily Kos
So I watched last night's debate. I heard three candidates. No one covers undocumented adults in his/her plan. I heard a moderator who could not moderate. I did not hear any questions on education, although several candidates did at least mention it in passing in responding to other questions, and I have resigned myself to the fact that it is simply not considered important enough or that there is enough distinction among these three for questioners to take time for an issue about which I care. And I think I heard a candidate pull a Lyndon Johnson.
What follows will be a personal response. With the exception of the Lyndon Johnson reference, it will not in any way discuss the candidates. But there I will discuss one. And for that I expect some may attack me. So be it.
On undocumented aliens I admit I was disappointed. To me this an issue of public health and also of cost. People who do not have sufficient health care coverage tend to avoid seeing the doctor until it is too late. That raises issues of public health, the problem that they may be exposed and perhaps contagious. I realize that there would be problems in getting insurance to undocumented adults, who might fear that registering would make them vulnerable to the agents of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). But if we are going to be healthy as a nation, we must at least discuss this
There is the further issue of uninsured people using the emergency room. This is expensive. And this is not just undocumented adults arriving, or even just thoe without insurance. The cost of treating in emergency rooms is prohibitive, but at least public hospitals cannot refuse to treat. Perhaps this could be somewhat alleviated even without extending insurance to undocumented adults. We could have more walk-in urgent care facitilities, which can deal with a lot of situations without the full equipment or staffing of the emergency room of a hospital. We also probably need more public health clinics to insure inoculations. We require inoculation of children attending public school as a public health measure, so those who are undocumented still have to receive shots in order to avail themselves of the right to free public schooling. Some systems provide relatively inexpensive clinics that provide those shots and the document that accompanies them. We should explore how we can extend such inoculation program to adults at relatively low cost.
I heard mention of poor people not having banks, of payday lenders who gouge them, this at a time when if I watch television for two hours I will almost certainly see an ad by the organization that represents payday lenders: in the DC area those ads are ostensibly aimed at the potential borrower, when nin fact the real target is the member of Congress. But this raises a broader issue that was not addressed. It is not just banks redline in not being willing to lend in some neighborhoods except on subprime terms. There are no banks in those neighborhoods. If someone is paid by check, s/he has to pay a premiumm to turn it into cash at a check-cashing service, which far too often is in a site which sells lottery tickets and liquor and the like. There are more liquor stores in some inner city neighborhoods than there are food stores. And those stores that sell food are limited in what they carry and and charge more than would be paid in neighborhoods of higher income - and paler color, because this is often also a question of race. I don't have a ready answer to this problem, but if we are addressing the issue of economic inequity clearly we must look at how some businesses prey on the poor even as they claim they are providing services. And they may be providing some service in the absence of those traditional businesses (supermarkets, banks) and their unwillingness to serve these types of neighborhoods. Or is it these kinds of people? IF people do not have cars (think Lower 9th ward) they are not able to do what most of us here can do - drive to the supermarket of choice, or the bank of choice, even if it is several miles away.
We heard three different plans for pumping more money into the economy quickly. One candidate talked about passing along additional money for increased costs for heating through the social security check. While that is efficient, it misallocateds, because many who would receive under such a distribution have resources other than their Federal check. But it does serve as a reminder that if one begins thinking outside the box of how to pump money in and help people, there are multiple methods available. Increased fuel costs will mean increased food costs. The most immediate way to quickly get money to people who will spend it directly or indirectly might be to increase the amount of and accessibility to food stmps, as these go to those truly at the bottom of the economic ladder. And writing about food reminds me of the school lunch program, funds for which might need to be similarly increased. And then there are the costs of school transportation, where some school systems have had to cut other programs in order to absorb the additional costs of fueling the buses necessary to get kids to school, and to heat their buildings this winter. I wonder if we want to quickly pump money into the economy if Congress could not find a way to help address these costs, perhaps with a winefall profits tax on the oil companies. But I acknowledge I have not thought this through.
I wa disappointed in the lack of moderation. Blitzer is simply too weak to manage a debate without lights, and if one or more candidates want to keep talking, it was impossible to stop. I am more concerned over some of the questions. I really thought the final question was offensive. Maybe it is just me, but the shape of that question belittled the legacy of Dr. King. Why even ask it? If you want to ask the candidates a question related to Dr. King, ask what he most like about your policy proposals and what would he most criticize, leave enough time, and insist that they answer both parts, since I suspect that there would be great reluctance for the candidates to acknowledge where their policy proposals are insufficient. Perhaps all that could be asked is what would King describe as the greatest progress we had made in the 4 decades since his death, and what would he think is still our most unaddressed need. Even better, since King talked about Vietnam and connected it with issues of poverty of justice, what might he have to say about Iraq (although I cannot imagine CNN raising that question).
There was much positive in the debates. There was too much petty squabbling, to be sure. Bob Herbert thinks there was insufficient discussion of race last night. In HIS column today he writes The Democrats are here this week fighting over the black vote. It’s ironic that in a state so racially polarized, there is so little serious discussion among the candidates of the race issue.
Senator Barack Obama, with his message of unity and healing (and not wanting to be seen solely as a black candidate), has tried to avoid addressing the issue of race head-on. Bill and Hillary Clinton have worked hard at turning that posture into a negative, aggressively courting the black vote, while at the same time spotlighting (directly and through surrogates) the fact that Mr. Obama is black.
The result has been a churning of the issue of race to no constructive effect, even during last night’s debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute.
Now some elements of race were discussed last night, although perhaps not as openly as some like Herbert may desire. And given the acrimony that had already occurred, it might not be unexpected that the candidates tread softly on issues related to race, although all three attempted to relate what they said to the needs of many in the Black community. Since I listen with white ears, I do not know if the assessment of Herbert is on or off point.
But I do know this, and now I will court trouble. I heard an echo of LBJ that did not please me. There is a tale about him that an aide once told him he could not accuse an opponent of f***ing a pig, that is was untrue, and Johnson replied that he knew it wasn't, he just wanted to hear the guy deny it. This is a political tactic of raising something that is distorte if not downright untrue to force your opponent into talking about that rather than true differences on the issues. Perhaps some here will say such an approach is a perfectly valid compare and contrast between candidates. I expect that even in a primary situation our candidates need to vigorously challenge one another. That does not bother me. But when a candidate raises things s/he knows are not as s/he portrays them, perhaps counting on the fact that many watching do not know they have been examined and dismissed, I think that is a negative. It hurts the party, and it distorts the process. I saw that last night, and it clarified things for me. And as a result I will no longer consider voting for Hillary Clinton in the Virginia primary on February 12, even though I would vote for her in the general election in November against any Republican candidate.
For me the worst example of what bothered me was the one time I heard no applause in response to what was said but rather some audible disapproval. Clinton made a reference to Obama's dealings with a Chicago real estate man named Rezko, although she did not use his name. She implied that Obama was working for him, and I suppose that is literally true. There is no doubt that Obama bought his current house in an arrangement in which Rezko was involved - this has been well explored. As far as I have seen, and I have read the coverage, Obama paid full market price for the property, although he has acknowledged problems with the deal. The Chicago papers have extensively explored Obama's associations with Rezko, direct and indirect, with the Chicago Sun-Times even having a piece where the son of an associate (an unindicted co-conspirator) of Rezko was, at Rezko's request, hired as an intern upon Rezko's request for one month in 2005.
I was not entirely happy with Obama's response to the challenge on Rezko. At least he did not totally get into the gutter and start talking about Norman Hsu and the like with Hillary, or the Marc Rich pardon with her husband, as perhaps some overly zealous Obama partisans might have wanted. I felt even his dig at Clinto for serving on the WalMart board was misplaced. When she served Mr. Sam was still running the company, and it was somewhat, even quite, different than it has been since he passed. Sam Walton never put on airs, remained the same throughout much of his life, and probably genuinely believed that he was bringing low prices to many people and providing jobs to many who had not had them. I can criticize the early Walmart, but that is very different that attempting to link Clinton's service decades ago with the image of a company that today because of a different management is a bete noir among many Democrats because of its treatment of its employees.
That said, I place the blame for this at the feet of the Clinton campaign, and it, along with much else I heard last night was enough. I want a different kind of politics. I don't want an approach that believes that we can win by getting to 51%, whether in the primary or the general. And what I saw last night convinced me that I am not at all comfortable with the people around Hillary Clinton, the Terry McAuliffes and the Mark Penns.
There is much I admire about Hillary Clinton. I do not think she is evil, nor would I refuse to vote for her in the general should she win the nomination. I seriously hope she does not, unless she and her campaign change how they are pursuing it. Given the people around her I do not expect to see a change.
I have not as a result of last night decided for whom I will vote. Both Edwards and Obama remain under consideration, and I will make a choice. I saw and heard things last night I liked, and saw and heard things that troubled me, but my impression of both men improved last night. I have a preference, but it is not locked in stone. Not yet.
This is my personal reaction to last night, on the issues, the moderator, the candidates. It is an explanation, and not an attempt to persuade or dissuade anyone else. And I make a further commitment - even though I will not support Hillary Clinton, neither will I attack her. I don[t like that approach when I see it from her campaign, and I will not be a part of it. If her partisans feel a need to bash me because of my decision, that is entirely their privilege, but I will not respond in any fashion. It is my decision, and it is personal.
Nor am I interested in having supporters of Obama and Edwards attempting to sway me by attacking the other. I will continue to listen, to think about the things I believe are important, to watch what the candidates say and do, and what their campaigns say and do on their behalf.
It saddens me that I have to exclude one candidate in this fashion. I would have preferred my decision be made entirely on the issues and on who would make the best president, perhaps even who would be the best candidate. But the tone of our politics matters to me. It matters to the students with whom I instruct. That's me. If that doesn't matter to you and you still want to support Clinton, great. Make your case for her positively, for there is much in her record and her ideas that is positive. But for heaven's sake - and this applies to the partisans of all the candidates - be careful how aggressively you act and speak in attempting to advance the fortunes of your favored candidate. For many there are lines which if you cross you will lose them forever, which means they might not support your guy/gal in the general. And that would be a tragedy.
Peace.
Comments
I know the discussion here, if any will be different (teacherken - 1/22/2008 9:11:20 AM)
than at dailykos, where the flame wars begin almost instantaneously on candidate diaries. I thought I owed this community an explanation of my thinking.
Peace.
You teach government and I'd like your opinion (oldsoldier - 1/22/2008 11:19:18 AM)
How do we reform campaigns? Before I can ask for your opinion, some questions must be answered.
1. Do we the people still stand as landlords to the airwaves we have leased and the cable and satellite franchises we have granted, or have we sold them outright?
2. What greater "public service" can the broadcast media provide than "pro bono" or "hidden cost of lease" telecasts of presidential debates.
Teacherken, you seem worried that the candidates did not hit hard on education and I agree BUT, South Carolina has, according to sources I cannot remember, a 50% high school graduation rate.
Now Jesus, Allah, Buddah or whatever, why in any God's name are we, an advanced country and perhaps still the greatest nation on earth, OBSESSING over presidential primary results in a state with a 50% high school graduation rate?
What do you, teacherken, think of a system where, some months before the primaries, the candidates who can get whatever seems to be a fair number of petition signatures to become a candidate, some air and cable/satellite time for one each two to three hour debate in every state of the union moderated by the league of women voters, certainly not by the network annointed Blitzers and the MSNBC crew save Olberman, and no other ads permitted by candidates?
This won't stop Mitch McConnel and the 527's successors sure to be approved by the Supreme Court, but it certainly would give the candidates who are "swift-boated" in those ads 30 or more opportunities to reply in live debate.
THEN, and ONLY THEN, we have a republican and democratic primary in each and every state on a Saturday on which, by law, all athletic events would be prohibited.
Maybe we could cast it in "reality show format" for the younger generation where losing candidates would have to fire their consultants and walk away in shame.
That's openers. The ball on what to do is now in your court.
will answer if I have time later today (teacherken - 1/22/2008 2:28:48 PM)
between classes right now, just finding out lowell promoted this to front page
Campaign duration reform (Quizzical - 1/22/2008 9:24:13 PM)
I've heard that in the UK they have very short political campaigns, and that their campaigns are more substantive as a result. I'm not sure how they manage that, or whether the same result could be achieved in this country.
However, it's been said fairly often that the press corps focuses on trivia (the way candidates dress or do their hair, for example) because they get bored. They get tired of hearing and writing about the same stump speech and policy positions over and over. As do their readers and viewers.
Also, it seems obvious that lengthening campaigns put an increasingly higher premium on fund-raising, with all the harmful effects that accompany that.
The primary season appears to have been pushed earlier and earlier, not because that achieves any better results (as if that were measurable anyhow), but rather because the early primary States have found that it is an economic bonanza and they want the dollars and free pr.
So campaign duration reform is my solution.
good diary (DukieDem - 1/22/2008 12:53:39 PM)
I know many people here and on Kos anxiously await your decision!
Walmart (Ingrid - 1/22/2008 10:03:02 AM)
As far as I know, Walmart has never been an employee-friendly company, and has always fought the union, even in the early days of Sam Walton.
That's my understanding as well. (Lowell - 1/22/2008 10:06:08 AM)
n/t
Couldn't agree more... (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/22/2008 10:04:30 AM)
After last night, and though for one brief week I had moved her to No. 2, there is no way I can personally vote for Hillary in the Virginia primary or even leave her in second place.
While part of me still prefers Edwards, I decided for certain last night that I will now support Barack Obama. This is my personal choice. But it is hereby irrevocable, since I vow not to switch in the final two weeks.
Speaking as just one voter, I think we need to stop the nonsense. His record is being mightily distorted and I have had enough. The man is not getting credit for his outstanding courage of 2002. Speaking out when he did (and I heard the statement myself!) he opposed the war AND endorsed Howard Dean. He put everything on the line. He might not have ever been elected to the US Senate. But he did it anyway. Other candidates can argue till the cows come home, but they cannot change it. No matter what transpired later, Barack Obama was one of a small minority willing to speak against the grain fro what he believed, or rather knew to be true. He was right. And thus, by virtue of his mature insight and courageous stance for that time, Barack Obama's experience in the right things, such as exhibiting sound judgment, exceeds either of the other two "front runners."
I hope Obama refocuses on populism as he once did. I will be repeatedly writing to his campaign encouraging that. (Not that any campaign staff actually listen to the masses.)
More on this later. I am writing articles on several topics right now, including "Is this any way to chose a president?" and "Fact-checking the 'fact-checkers.'" These will further clarify my rationale.
Thanks for your thoughts, Ken.
Couldn't Agree (Gordie - 1/22/2008 3:50:19 PM)
with you more.
Obama has to stop his rudeness. He would attack, then when someone responded, he would be attacking as the other person spoke. Hardly ever hearing the candidates full explanation.
I was moving Obama to second, but now he is back to number 3.
Agree with whom? (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/22/2008 4:03:20 PM)
I am lining up with Obama on this.
Looking at them last night ... (Dianne - 1/22/2008 4:21:24 PM)
Clinton clearly knows how to present herself and look strong, unshakable (really important in these dogfights ... and those dogfights to come), and she's able to answer much better than in earlier debates, which is a confidence builder for voters.
Edwards was very good last night. He got more time to speak, which I like. One thing... he seems to spend a lot of time on the poverty issue versus showing his versatility and knowledge in other areas, which I think he definitely has. I may really be wrong on this one. But it's how it appears to me and I'm just one. Because he's been so unfairly ignored I might be really off on this one.
Obama did better in my mind than he's done before. The test in a debate is how you do under pressure. Though it looks like maybe he needs some tougher "murder boards" to get used to the rough and tumble of debates. Gordie nailed it pretty well above, though. It takes time to develop these skills. Clinton's had "hits" most of her adult life and Edwards is a successful trial room lawyer so it comes easier for them. I think and hope Obama will develop those skills. They're needed and he'd be an even better candidate.
Wow... (DanG - 1/22/2008 5:11:33 PM)
totally missed the point there, huh Gordie?
I think Kathy was criticizing Clinton, not Obama.
In the same boat (Kindler - 1/22/2008 10:25:43 AM)
teacherken, I'm with you to a large extent -- I've also been undecided but was turned off by the personal attacks and squabbling last night, with Hillary clearly the main offender.
I think she made two mistakes last night:
- Showing the worst side of herself with a lot of frankly ridiculous attacks on Obama. While a few points were legitimate (e.g., voting present on numerous occasions is something that deserves to be discussed and explained), most were total BS (stretching his comments on Reagan as a transformative leader into an endorsement of Republicans? GMAB!)
- Giving Obama a chance to show that he can both take a punch and give a few back. One of my concerns about Obama has been that he hasn't been in enough tough races to show that he can take on the Repubs when they throw everything at him. It is therefore frankly helpful to see him able to keep his composure and win arguments under fire.
While there is no excuse for the types of attacks that Hillary has been leveling, I think that Obama has to some extent opened himself up to attack by not talking enough about his background and experience. He needs to put it all out on the table now so the Repubs can't say this guy is too inexperienced to run the country and we know too little about him to trust him with the most important job in the world. (Yes, I know that he covered a lot of this in his excellent book, Dreams from my Father, but most Americans don't read.)
So for my part, while Hillary earned an extra black mark last night, Obama has still not completely closed the sale for me yet (though he's getting there)...
The look in their eyes (Rebecca - 1/22/2008 11:14:08 AM)
There was a picture of the candidates just before the debate last night at Huffington Post which was very revealing. Obama's eyes definitely looked hurt and disappointed, probably because of all the Billary Bull which has been coming his way in the last few days.
Hillary was cutting her eyes toward Obama like someone who was ready to knock him down at the next opportunity. Her face also had that puffy bloated look that people sometimes get when they are really mad and frustrated, but are holding it in.
Edwards looked like the guy who had it all together and was completely relaxed. If I had to interpret the meaning of his expression I would say that he knows he has the power to pick the nominee if he directs his delegates in a particular direction. He is loving being in the powerful third place.
Sounds Like (Gordie - 1/22/2008 3:56:12 PM)
The pettiness I heard in church years ago. Always talking about how some one was dressed or looked, rather then the good qualities. Assumtions of reasons?
Thanks Gordie (AnonymousIsAWoman - 1/22/2008 4:33:12 PM)
Actually, it sounded more like silly psychobabble to me. You look at a bad photo on a blog and think you can see into somebody's soul?
Thanks for validating what I saw and felt (True Blue - 1/22/2008 10:28:56 AM)
I thought Clinton's behavior last night was atrocious. I have been worried that there are those who condone or even applaud it. To hear that someone as clearheaded as you Ken saw and felt the same things I did reassures me that it wasn't just a partisan, pro-Obama reaction.
It will be interesting to see, in the end, who you choose.
I am disappointed and should be confused (oldsoldier - 1/22/2008 10:51:26 AM)
The comment most disturbing to me was that the button pushing focus group thought Edwards was the clear winner BUT were going to vote for Obama as he was seen as more electable.
I thank all of you who say you will vote for whomever is the nominee because I think the biggest sin of Ralph Nader when he jumped into the 2000 race was that HE TOOK HIS EYE OFF the most important ball, and we now have a chief justice of the Supreme Court who could live another 50 years and a young Alito who, if he wasn't in awe of Scalia would try to drag him further right.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT! You knee-jerk liberals, you true progressives, you independents, and you pissed-off republican moderates need to get off your high horses and REMEMBER that the next republican president will have the power to TIP the Court, while a democratic president will only be able to maintain the status quo.
If you are angry about the eventual nominee, vote for him or her anyway, or you will find out that the only thing that kept G. Dubya Bush and D.,the dick, Cheney from turning Congress into their personal parliament was their fear of the Supreme Court.
Want Proof? For years, many have wondered what would have happened in Watergate IF Nixon had erased the tapes.
Well folks, we're gonna find out because Cheney has ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs and the White House, following best industry recycling practices in spite of two federal laws, HAS ERASED THE TAPES.
Happy voting. Mine still goes to Edwards as someone who can and will fight for the little guy.
With age comes incredible wisdom, oldsoldier (soccerdem - 1/22/2008 12:25:38 PM)
Thank you! (AnonymousIsAWoman - 1/22/2008 2:56:46 PM)
Thank you oldsoldier for stating so eloquently what I was trying to argue on another thread the other day.
We have so much more to lose from those who would preach "my way or the highway."
I am not for Hillary. But with the Supreme Court at stake, with withdrawal from Iraq, with an economy tanking, a Democratic Congress could better work with any Democrat - yes even including Hillary - than with any Republican.
There are no longer moderate Republicans with whom we can find common ground - and Lord knows I have tried.
We start from completely different assumptions about free market/laissez faire capitalism versus sensible regulation and a government role to protect consumers, workers and business interests in this country. We will never agree with the Republicans on the issue of reproductive freedom and they will never quit on that issue, or stem cell research.
Only an elitist who will never be in need of any government assistance, whether to enforce civil rights and anti-discrimination law or for an economic stimulus package to help the economy, could even dream about sitting out the general election.
I think we have reached the same conclusions (citizenindy - 1/22/2008 4:11:21 PM)
I have believed in the idea of bipartisanship for much of my adult life but it is becoming increasingly clear that this has been a fantasy on my part. While hope sounds good on paper it is actual policy which gets things done.
I strongly disgree that it is the governments job to think for you and rescue you when you make stupid decisions. I beleive in the pursuit of liberty.
Equating reproductive freedom with the murder of an innocent is another issue. I believe in the pursuit of life.
And finally I trust in the ingeniuity and creativity of the American public over a buraucrat any day of the week. I believe in the pursuit of happiness.
I am not for Mitt Romney but I will vote for him over the Democratic nominee. Only a slave to the status quo would think about sitting out a general election.
I don't think we reached the same conclusion at all (AnonymousIsAWoman - 1/22/2008 4:36:23 PM)
I'm saying the opposite of what you are. I would stick with a Democrat and I believe in reproductive freedom and a limited but important role for government in helping its citizens. I have never been a "go it alone" type rugged individualist. And I support unions and collective bargaining.
Finally, I am urging people to stick with the Democrat rather than any Republican.
Of course its D vs R (citizenindy - 1/22/2008 5:48:14 PM)
I meant that both of us have realized that there really is no middle ground, we each came into blogging hoping to find one but in fact there is none.
-NMM
Why did you expect that? (tx2vadem - 1/22/2008 7:16:14 PM)
I think you must have been expecting acquiescence to your opinion. According to your stated positions, there is no room for compromise or a middle ground. If the government should do nothing and can do nothing right, then how do you reconcile that with people who believe that regulation is necessary in certain cases and the government can do things well when properly administered?
The government keeps saving corporations... (Hugo Estrada - 1/22/2008 4:50:03 PM)
Private corporations seemed to run to the government to be rescued everytime that they make a stupid decision. And the goverment does save them. In fact, the Bush administration has gone out of their way to save them from stupid decisions that our overpaid executives keep making when running U.S. companies into the ground.
A bureaucracy is a bureaucracy. And from what I have seen, private, corporate bureaucracies are worse than the public ones.
At least the public ones don't routinely reward administrators that run them into the ground with golden parachutes.
It seems that many conservatives only believe that the government is there to help corporations and the Paris Hilton's of the world.
Fine with me, but taxes are mainly paid by middle class individuals. It would only be fair that the money was spent on protecting middle class individuals as well.
Elitist? (spotter - 1/23/2008 6:07:07 AM)
No, I think the elitists are backing Hillary Clinton, and don't care how much damage they are causing in the process.
And yet, Spotter (AnonymousIsAWoman - 1/23/2008 10:07:14 AM)
The only ones I hear vowing not to support the eventual winner are the Obama supporters. I haven't seen or heard one Clinton supporter refusing to back Obama should he be the nominee in the general. But
they, not you, don't care about the damage being caused? Puleeze.
Anon, save your breath... (Dianne - 1/23/2008 8:21:02 PM)
you're dealing with irrationality. There are several thoughtful comments on this diary and yours' are in that catagory.
As an aside, this whole Obama-being-the-victim and Hillary going after him thing is now getting some attention on the talk shows and the talk is that he needs to quit playing the victim and get tougher. He did, to a great degree, in the SC debate. Things like "I don't know who I'm running against" need to go pronto.
Campaign staff: He needs tougher "murder boards" please.
I'm hearing a VERY different story (Lowell - 1/23/2008 10:05:39 PM)
from reliable sources. Let's just put it this way: it is most definitely NOT just Obama supporters saying they won't support another candidate. I don't know where you're getting this information from, but it's simply not correct.
Obama Is the One (Elaine in Roanoke - 1/22/2008 10:59:29 AM)
I have been for Sen. Barack Obama and continue to be for him following last night's debate. I must admit to cutting off the "debate" before it was finished because of the total lack of control by Wolf "Situation Room" Blitzer.
John Edwards is a fine man. I agree with many of his positions and I just wish he had voted the way he talks now when he was in the U.S. Senate and a proud member of the DLC.
I yearn for the day (and pray I live until that day) when a woman can be elected to the highest office of the land, but I do not think Hillary Clinton is the right person to be the first. Perhaps if she shows the ability to rein in her husband, I might feel more inclined her way.
Sen. Barack Obama is the change agent this nation needs. Perhaps it can overcome its past racism (Note that the Virginia senate adjourned on Martin Luther King Day in order to honor Gen. Stonewall Jackson!) and elect a man of his caliber. I hope so.
In any event, I was for and continue to be for Barack Obama. I will, however, vote for any breathing Democrat against any of the "same-old same-old" from the "tired-old" GOP.
There's a lot which they didn't discuss (Rebecca - 1/22/2008 11:03:29 AM)
Right. They didn't really discuss immigration, except for a comment by John Edwards.
They didn't discuss globalization. Obama has talked about this and what he would do about it, but not in this debate.
Did they talk about regulating the investment industry so we don't have another mortgage crises (not to say that this one is over)? Maybe they did, but I forgot.
It seems that they just skirted over so many issues. Election reform was addressed by Hillary, but I don't believe she will pursue that.
They didn't discuss the bloated military budget, the debt, and the effect that is having on the dollar.
It seems like the you-said-I-said distracted from and took time from what could have been a better discussion.
In fairness to Wolf... (relawson - 1/22/2008 11:27:43 AM)
I heard a moderator who could not moderate.
I would point out that Wolf didn't hold a gun to their heads and force them to march into the gutter. Could he have been more assertive? Sure, but do we want to elect a person President who needs a babysitter?
Edwards was able to control himself and did well last night. He came across as presidential. Hillary and Obama didn't come out of this looking very good.
This debate may be a turning point.
Agreed (oldsoldier - 1/22/2008 11:53:10 AM)
I cannot stand Wolf and Mr. HARDBALL for the most part, but Wolf didn't do what most ticks me off (I'm being nice) about most moderators which is cutting off and jumping in with asinine and inane reasons and comments. Again, I said in another comment, what about the league of women voters or some even more neutral group for moderators?
Russ Mitchell of CBS or whatever and Keith Olberman when he doesn't have to be paired with or sit in a group of Andrea Mitchell consorts seem neutral. Olberman will respect valid opinions and factual arguments of the misguided right wing, else he is progressive plus.
Chris Matthews was an aide to Tip O'Neil? Does that make him more interested in substantive issues or program ratings? Does he really know anything and have any access to sources we don't (excepting Tom DeLay- The thing about democrats is that they're like cockroaches. You have to kill them all, otherwise what's the point?)
Give me a break Neutral Timmey!
LBJ Story (Harry Landers - 1/22/2008 11:35:53 AM)
I think teacherken is spot on with the LBJ story. That's exactly what Senator Clinton was doing last night. She would make a charge, that she knew was, at best, a half-truth or distortion, just to force Senator Obama to deny or explain it. To make things worse, as she was making the scurrilous charge, she would try to negate his response, in advance, by asserting that any defense was just a dodge. For example:
And anytime anyone raises that, there's always some kind of explanation like you just heard about the 30 percent. It's just very difficult to get a straight answer, and that's what we are probing for.
That kind of attack is intellectually dishonest and highlights a serious character defect on the part of Senator Clinton.
Yes, and she is continuing along these lines today... (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/22/2008 12:55:00 PM)
Clearly, she doesn't care how much damage she does all around. And she's costing not just Obama, but herself and all of us.
Agreed (Doug in Mount Vernon - 1/22/2008 1:07:08 PM)
I really think she's playing some ugly games with negative politics. I just hope the non-comatose Democratic primary voters who are not already blinded by their Zeallary will talk about why it will be important to nominate a candidate who will change the way politics has become and seek to inspire and lead us through their service, instead of grasping for more power all the time.
I am so repulsed by the Clintons right now, I don't know what to say.
Particularly odious is (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/22/2008 4:05:44 PM)
the push-polling which put Obama's middle name in the questions. You know what that's about and it stinks. Any pretense that Barack shares anything real in common with other holders of that name is not worthy to run.
It's so disgustingly dirty that it is breathtaking.
Agreed it is an old dirty debate tactic (Todd Smyth - 1/22/2008 2:41:31 PM)
Distort your opponents record (several times) to draw them into trying to unravel the distortion and then pounced on them for not giving a simple answer and use it to reinforce the original distortion. That is an old and dirty debate tactic and is exactly the kind of divisive politics that keeps us divided and pitted against each other, allowing corporate special interests to get their way. Hillary doesn't care.
Todd, don't you think we are just... (Dianne - 1/22/2008 4:32:15 PM)
winnowing out the best candidate, isn't that what we want debates (among other things) to do? You've assumed we are divided and pitted against each other but I don't think there's not a hair's worth of difference between the three policywise, so, if we are pitted, then it's self-inflicted.
I'd betthat the campaign process, the primaries, and future debates will bring us to the best candidate; and the journey, tough as it is, will bring us to the best one to face the Rethugs.
Oops double negative (Dianne - 1/22/2008 4:34:22 PM)
...I don't think there's a hair's worth of difference...
and can you squeeze a space between bet and that?
Poor Obama (Gordie - 1/22/2008 4:05:27 PM)
Makes me want to cry.
At least the half truth statement could be posted, so others know what you are talking about.(Not LBJ, since I know what that is).
For Example:
still not convinced (skippy smooth - 1/22/2008 12:02:42 PM)
by either hillary or obama,edwards still has my vote if he doesnt drop out.
Hear! Hear! n/t (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/22/2008 4:06:51 PM)
John Edwards says (Lowell - 1/22/2008 1:53:44 PM)
he's from the "grown-up wing of the Democratic Party." This is an obvious play on Howard Dean's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," and an obvious slam at both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for their "squabbling" during last night's debate. Alrighty then! :)
I thought it was a play on Paul Wellstone's quote: (thegools - 1/22/2008 8:02:13 PM)
"I am from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
education (martha - 1/22/2008 2:23:23 PM)
Until we ( as educators) approach teaching and education in a different way the status quo will remain the same, I am afraid.
I don't know teacherken but I am impressed w/ his comments. I am also surprised he has the time to post as often as he does especially if he is an AP teacher.He must be SUPERMAN!
The majority of teachers where I taught were caring and hard working but only a small handful were brilliant. Many would skate by doing the bare minimum in their classes and sometimes caved in to parents and administrators at grade time.
I am now retired and subbing some in classrooms at the same school where I taught for many years. It becomes apparent after about 5 minutes who the good teachers are.
Alternately..... Who in their right mind wants to teach for the pay Virginia teachers make? Who wants to listen to whiney parents and apathetic students all the time? Who wants to "cover" classes for an absent co-worker because there aren't enough competent subs due to low sub pay?What special ed teacher wants to spend all his/her time filling out papers instead of actually teaching? Teaching to the test hinders students it doesn't enhance them.
SOL standards have been dummied down. Teacher creativity is often snuffed. NCLB...what a joke. We have a school in Lynchburg that has been rated in the top 100 schools nationally but is also classified as a dropout factory. HUH? How does that happen?
I have always thought that smaller class sizes are important and not just in higher level/AP classes. More gets done, students achieve more and test ( yuk) results improve. Single gender classes on some levels have proved helpful. Year round school is proving to be a wise alternative to summer reading level drops. Those are just a few suggestions. Teacherken probably has more and I am sure those of you who read this blog do also.
Education is very important to me as a retired teacher and a new grandmother. We BETTER be addressing it because the Republican solutions will not please us!A 50% dropout rate in any state or locality is unacceptable!
it's called getting little sleep (teacherken - 1/22/2008 2:32:33 PM)
I wrote original for dailykos at 5;30 this morning, although I had probably mentally written it in a conversation with my wife after the debate
I moved it ovr here when I had a few free moments
and I have just now discovered that Lowell promoted it
I do work hard, and try to challenge my students. Only 3 of my 6 class, and 65 of my 134 students, are AP, so I have a little breathing room, although I work just as hard with my non-AP students
peace.
Rezko connection (Todd Smyth - 1/22/2008 2:54:25 PM)
As Obama pointed out his connection to Rezko was representing a church which was trying to help build low income housing and was working with Rezko. Obama billed 5 hours on the project and this was before there was any cloud over Rezko, who was seen by the community and church at the time as upstanding, generous and helpful. None of Rezko's indictments have anything to do with that project.
Rezko probably is a bad guy but it wasn't until recently that the cloud of suspicion, and indictments became public. Hillary's distortion and exageration of this is surreal compared to her many connections to more sinister known felons.
Clintons short memory (Alter of Freedom - 1/22/2008 5:21:14 PM)
And I guess we should all forget Clintons involvement back in Arkansas in those little real estate dealings. This was the same attack waged against Thompson regarding a firm he worked for years back on the Republican side and the lobby issue....all lawyers working in large firms can be unwilling participants it seems in things that look on the surface as inappropriate... Clintons continue to open the door wide open when they should have been able to close the deal by now by reminding us all just how insider and establishment they really are.
What Obama should have said. (spotter - 1/22/2008 9:37:26 PM)
Funny how Hillary Clinton can find my time records from my old law firm when she couldn't seem to find her time records from her old law firm.
great point (Alter of Freedom - 1/23/2008 12:18:59 AM)
that is a great point and those travel files??
The most balanced and informative post I've seen (AnonymousIsAWoman - 1/22/2008 3:04:52 PM)
So many are choosing up sides between Hillary versus Obama and then reacting as if either one or the other is the Devil incarnate. Thank you so much Teacherken for a fair, balanced and reasonable explanation of what you saw, how you came to your decision to not support Hillary and why you take issue with her actions.
By refraining from hyperbole, you have made a good and convincing case. By stating that despite this, you will support the party nominee in the general election, you have won me over to your point of view.
If others would follow your lead, they might have similar success.
Thank you!
Teacherkin, I Did not Hear This (Gordie - 1/22/2008 3:41:53 PM)
"Clinton made a reference to Obama's dealings with a Chicago real estate man named Rezko, although she did not use his name. She implied that Obama was working for him, and I suppose that is literally true. There is no doubt that Obama bought his current house in an arrangement in which Rezko was involved - this has been well explored. As far as I have seen, and I have read the coverage, Obama paid full market price for the property, although he has acknowledged problems with the deal. The Chicago papers have extensively explored Obama's".
What I heard after the Walton board was a remark about Obama working for a Slum landlord. Now if these are one in the same person, I would not have associated your comments with Hillary's comment.
And if you are correct about Hillary meaning Rezko and she did not mention anything about his house buying, then you are injecting something that was never said last night and doing exactly what the media does. Inject what they want to inject, just to create a story.
Sure you seem to know more to the story, but for us who do not know most of the story, then a disservice was done by injecting things the public at large may not know. And what was done is as bad as any campaign injecting things and getting some one to run with the story.
I was starting to lean to Obama, but things were said and he could not answer with a good explanation, that he turned me off again.
The 100 present votes, excuse and that is how it is done in IL, then IL is a messed up system and they have had there share of corrupt politicians. (No I am not saying Obama is Corrupt). No mattter how someone trys to explain a present vote away, to me it is still a "NO" vote. To me it is the same as his absentense this year from the Senate on critical votes, because he was campaigning, while the other candidates rushed back to cast a vote.
So far today, all the newspapers are injecting things that were not said. I have not read a single story with the facts breaking down all the candidates replies for the truth or fiction.
PS. Forgot (Gordie - 1/22/2008 3:45:31 PM)
Other then that story. I do agree with 95 percent of what was written.
you miss the point (teacherken - 1/22/2008 4:18:30 PM)
and note I criticized Obama for the Walmart comment
Hillary wants to imply something shady in Obama's dealings with a man who has now been indicted on totally other grounds. People in her campaign have also shopped the bit about the land deal. She didn't have to mention the name.
It was a sleazy tactic. Were that the only thing, and given the context with his remarks, I might not be responding as I did. It was her entire presentation, it was in conjunction with all the other things done by her campaign. The statements she was making about other things were also distortions, and she knew it.
Oh, and please note - when she made the reference to the slumlord, she got NO applause and there was audible disapproval
this was of a piece with her NH co-chair raising the drug issue, with her chief adviser Mark Penn using the word cocaine, with polling using Barack HUSSEIN Obama in asking the question - it is not one thing last night, it is the totality for me.
Agree or not, I am explaining my reasoning. I am not attempting to persuade anyone else. Because I have made a point of pointing out that I was still neutral so that when I praised or criticized one of three it should be looked at as my best judgment, I felt I had a responsibility to explain why I am no longer neutral in that I will no longer consider voting for Clinton in the primary.
Peace.
as was Bill's innuendo regarding hearsay concerning election practices... n/t (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/22/2008 4:29:42 PM)
It reminds me of that old game of gossip. You hear, think you heard, or half hear something and then pass it on. I cannot believe he actually tried to play that hand.
My Apology (Gordie - 1/22/2008 8:18:27 PM)
CNN ran the remarks earlier and Hillary did mention the name Rezko when she made the remark about a slum landlord. She did not say anything about the housing deal, which was my point.
Never once did I think you were praising or attacking either candidate. It was totally about wether Hillary said the housing deal, which she did not.
Aso CNN did a fact check on some remarks and did a half way assessment of what was said. Cnn did seem to cut the fact test short.
you entirely miss the point (teacherken - 1/22/2008 10:44:51 PM)
and are trying to pick at motes while missing the beam in the eye of Hillary and those defending her and her campaign on this point
so say what you want. My reference to the housing deal is because that is what raised Rezko's name in the Chicago paper. And by talking about one part of the relationship with Rezko Clinton was trying to tie Rezko around Obama's neck. And that was over the line
That she did it in response to the Walmart comment has nothing to do with it. He made that comment after she had previously been distorting what he had said about Reagan, even if she didn['tn mention Reagan's name.
It is all too reminsicent of the hairsplitting of her husband, the less than honest way he approached many of his problem areas. I don't want any more of that, and the nation doesn't need any ore of that. And the more they do it the more they alienate people.
Bill Clinton was in it for Bill Clinton. As he continues with what he is doing he is destroying respect for his legacy.
And he did NOT have big ideas - after Hillary blew healthcare in part by being too secretive, and thus costing her husband control of the Congress (althouhg his mishandling of gays in the military contirbuted to that, as did heis mishandling of Lani Ginier, of cutting off Bruce babbit's leg on grazing permits and many more errors I could name) Bill never took on anything big again - he became an incrementalist. Obama was right to say that during Clinton's prsidency the Republican were offering the big ideas, challening the conventional wisdom. While in 1996 Bill was triangulating with Dick Morris to get reelected with no care for the rest of the Democratic party.
Peace.
teacherken for President! (The Grey Havens - 1/22/2008 3:42:24 PM)
America needs more friends.
Wedge issue tactics (Rebecca - 1/22/2008 3:49:56 PM)
What's the different between Hillary holding us hostage to Roe v. Wade and forcing us to hold our noses and vote for her because we are afraid it will be overturned, and the Republicans voting for the anti choice candidate only get another dose of corporate greed. It seems that both are holding their camps hostage to the wedge issues and the corporations are laughing all the way to the bank.
Hillary Is Not Holding Us Hostage to Roe v Wade the Republicans are (AnonymousIsAWoman - 1/22/2008 4:45:30 PM)
because they actually want to overturn it. They have enough votes on the Supreme Court to possibly do it. South Dakota tried to outlaw abortion to get it back before the Supreme Court but fortunately the pro choice forces were able to get the issue on a referendum, where that law was defeated. Other conservative states, such as neighboring North Dakota and Mississippi, were watching this closely and hoping to mount their own challenges.
Hillary didn't do that.
Rebecca, with all due respect, and I apologize if I am being rude, but please read a little more and learn to make a legitimate and informed argument. You will do your own side much more good once you do.
I never said Hillary did any of this (Rebecca - 1/22/2008 6:03:57 PM)
I was merely describing a phenomenon. It seems the the answer is to free some of the Evangelicals from this straight jacket. I think there is some movement in that direction.
Yes, it's called the Emerging Church Movement (AnonymousIsAWoman - 1/22/2008 6:19:12 PM)
I've reported on it a bit, though not in nearly in as much detail as I would have liked. It's a fascinating new movement made up of young former Evangelicals who have grown dissatisfied with the hard Christian Right.
Below are a couple of links for those interested in exploring this topic more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
http://www.emergingchurch.info/
Saddened by the lack of substance (Alter of Freedom - 1/22/2008 5:34:20 PM)
I was hopeful weeks back that finally we were going to get an opportunity to have leaders address issues that are impacting Amercians in the daily lives we all lead, our children, healthcare, education, jobs and economy, security, savings and social security.
We approach that level of substance until in my view Obama has been engaged and diverted rather intentionally off message by Bill Clinton. Notice how the stink of Nevada would be quite different right now had Obama won. But since Clinton won the vote, though not the delegates it seems, the Clinton's hammering on voter suppression have backed off entirely on the issue. Had Clinton lost this would certainly still be a huge topic. The fcat that it is not tells you all you need to know about the Cklinton machine. Last night it seemed Obama was put to task for "answering" to Mrs. Clinton quite frankly at a level that failed to promote any substantive debate. I think she entirely went in the wrong direction to win over independents or moderate Republicans who have fiscally become disillusioned with its Party dynamic.
I hope that Obama will move on with the victory in SC to get back on message about those issues that may unite all Americans. In my view even if he wins the nomination and losses the general America needs a figure with his ability to challenge the leadership and the direction and be representative of the People. Thats is a debate I look forward to tuning in for regardless of the Republican candidate. I just do not see America being furthered by any debate for the Presidency with Clinton being involved at this point with the kind of campaign that is being run now by her and her husband against Obama.
any gain from softness she showed in NH now gone? (teacherken - 1/22/2008 6:57:06 PM)
last night she was all brittle, hard-edged, no vulnerability - all the style that hurt her in Iowa. My sense is that it did not play well. I don't think Obama came across as well as he could have but well enough to hold his support and perhaps pick up undecided blacks, and that whatever support Edwards gained last night is likely to be whites taken from Clinton. I will wait for polling, but I expect obama to hold or even increase his margin and he could well win by double digits. That would give him momentum, so look for the Clintons to jump in large in Florida to be able to have something on the table before February 5 - they will use Obama's national ad on cable networks and claim he violated the agreement so they can as well
A number of people are calling the Clintons on their b/s Jake Tapper of ABC did as you can see in my other frontpage story, Gene Robinson of the Post did somewhat in his column this morning, and remember, he makes regular appearances on MS-NBC. I would not at all be surprised to see Keith Olbermann taking a run at this tonight.
Peace.