Tonight's debate will be interesting. I'm still not sure how you come to a compromise about all of this and with nerves raw. Tim Russert is licking his chops to start a fight. meanwhile in MI Republicans (3% reporting) Romney 36% McCain 31% Huckabee 17% and Rudy holding strong at 4%
This debate is weird. Half an hour into it, and almost all the questions are about the campaign as opposed to any specific issues. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing, but it's certainly different.
The issuing of pulling out of Iraq crystallizes why I pulled my support for Edwards. His pandering to the left wing is sickening. I'm all for pulling out as soon as possible, but for him to say right now all combat troops would be out within a year is irresponsible.
I totally agree - I really like this debate. More substance, less cattiness, and I really do like the wide variety of questions. I kind of wish they allowed the candidates to ask more questions of each other. Looking at the beginning now, I think it was a good opportunity for all the candidates to get all that stuff out of their system. And frankly, I can't pick a winner. I think they've all done a pretty good job.
Sucks that fatheads Russert and Matthews are developing the narrative that people, heading to work and having missed the debate tonight, will be fed tomorrow on the Today Show.
The continual early efforts to only talk about the recent media stoked controversey wrt to MLK, "fairy tale" etc was a bad thing and complete bs that unmasks the unsubstantive Entertainment Tonight focus of the media. Eventually the moderators calmed down and let the candidates talk about, the economy, the war, global warming, nuclear power, health care etc -- you know important matters of public policy that presidents should care about. The debate showed that there is not that much difference between the three. As an aside, Obama clearly does not do as well as Hillary and Edwards in that format.
very interesting... -------------- The Michigan Democratic primary was on the surface a non-event. The national party has ruled the state's delegation will not be seated. Of the major candidates, only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot, pitted against "uncommitted" in a seemingly meaningless race (she won by 15 percent). Yet the exit poll results from this strange contest reveal some troubling trends for the New York Senator. Among men, for example, the battle was neck and neck. Clinton got 47 percent and the anonymous/non-existent opposition got 43 percent. (Clinton did substantially better among women, winning 58-37.) The opposition was not, however, altogether ethereal. For the most part, voting "uncommitted" was a substitute for casting a ballot for Barack Obama, or for some voters, John Edwards. Among black voters, Clinton was crushed by "uncommitted," 26-70. If that kind of margin among African Americans continues into future primaries, she faces major problems in the heavily black January 26 South Carolina primary and in the states with large black populations going to the polls on February 5 -- so-called Tsunami Tuesday. Clinton carried whites in Michigan by a 61-30. Clinton ran poorly among young voters of all races, losing those under the age of 30 by 39-48 percent; splitting voters from 30 to 44 by 46-48 percent; solidly carrying the 45 to 56 age group by 54-34 percent; and winning voters 60 and older by a landslide 67-31 percent. Clinton continued to do well among the least well-educated voters and those with lower incomes. She carried voters without college degrees by 55-37, but tied among those with college degrees, 46-45. Clinton also won voters making $50,000 or less by 60-34, but tied among those making more, 46-45. In a warning signal if she becomes the Democratic nominee, Clinton did much better among committed Democrats, winning them 57-37, than among independents, losing them 32-51. Looking toward the future, the Michigan exit poll demonstrates the viability of the Clinton campaign strategy of winning solid majorities in states that, unlike Michigan and South Carolina, do not allow participation of either Republicans or independents in their "closed" primaries, like the February 5 contests in New York, Connecticut, Colorado and Arizona. Many very large February 5 states, however, including California, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia, have open primaries that will give Obama a chance to pull in independent voters. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/16/michigan-results-reveal-s_n_81713.html
I don't see how any of these are warning signs. If I'm a candidate, I want the splits Hillary has. If I have a choice between men & women, I want to win women. If I have a choice between white or black, I want to win the white vote. If I have a choice between old or young, I want to win the older vote. Why? Because there are more voters in the categories Hillary is winning than in the ones that she's not - that's the concern to me. Hillary can win without changing the trends. Obama needs to make up ground with women, white voters, and/or older voters, or he can't win. Having support from independents helps, but many of the primaries are closed and he can't really afford to lose all the states that have closed primaries.
Agreed again. I thought Hillary was really impressive, and I'm not a Hillary fan. But as you said, this debate highlighted for me that their positions in their campaigns are almost identical across the board. Just pick the person you like the most. I agree with the sentiment that Edwards needs to drop out soon. I think he would be the perfect running mate for Obama. Obama is big on talking about vision...and how important that is. Edwards shares his vision, I think, largely. I think it would serve him well to have someone who already has that internalized.
In the Democratic primaries, you are on the money. But in the general election, Hillary has a ceiling. She will probably be the nominee, but her selection gives the GOP a shot at winning or at least forcing a close contest in November. If Obama is for real (big question still in my mind), he gives the Dems a shot at a decisive win in November.
I absolutely agree - I think Hillary's negatives ensure that she has a ceiling. Plus, it will drive out the GOP vote. I'm just looking at it from the perspective of the primaries. I think if Obama makes it to the general, he wins. Frankly, in a two-way, he wins. It's that Edwards is taking away just enough of the anti-Hillary vote that's causing a big problem. I suspect the vast majority of Edwards voters would go to Obama if he dropped out, but as long as he's in, Hillary can with without a majority.
I've made the assumption all along that if Edwards drops out, he'll be quick to endorse Obama for 2 reasons. He doesn't like Hillary and he has hopes of another VP run. If that happens (hopefully sooner rather than later), Obama will crush Hillary.
I agree - I just wish he would drop out. The longer he remains competitive, the more delusional he'll get - that's why I hope he gets rocked in South Carolina and puts an end to this. If he doesn't drop out until after Super Tuesday, it probably is too late. If I'm Obama, I have to put out feelers to see if he'll accept the VP job (or some other really high post) in exchange for dropping out now. Biden or someone like that is ideal, but I don't know that Obama has that option anymore. New head-to-head polls came out and it's absurd how well Obama does: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html McCain/Obama: Obama by 2 McCain/Clinton: McCain by 4 Huckabee/Obama: Obama by 23 Huckabee/Clinton: Clinton by 9 Romney/Obama: Obama by 30 (56% to 26%!) Romney/Clinton: Clinton by 12 Guiliani/Obama: Obama by 21 Guiliani/Clinton: Clinton by 10 He just has a ridiculous ceiling compared to any other candidate and could wins states that Dems haven't won in ages.
Hillary Clinton and Tracy Flick <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wZfQTOLsxVE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wZfQTOLsxVE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Basically yes. Also, the law of common sense says you don't lock yourself into a box and make that kind of promise before you are sure it can be kept. If elected, he could find circumstances are such that keeping that promise would be irresponsible. He then could either be irresponsible and keep the promise or do the right thing by lose all credibility. That promise was pure pandering to lock up the frothing at the mouth anti-war vote. For the record, I'm against the war and we should pull out as soon as it can be responsibly done. This 2018 stuff is crazy talk. Personally, I have no problem with leaving some amount of combat troops to make strikes at Al-Qaeda within Iraq. As long as they are not in daily harms way.
