Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
After losing by considerable margins in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia primaries to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton unveiled an ad attacking her rival yesterday. The voiceover says:
Both Democratic candidates were invited to a televised debate here in Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton has said yes. Barack Obama hasn’t. Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions.Obama's spokesman told The Caucus, "Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have debated 18 times already and have agreed to two more debates in the next three weeks. It’s telling that Senator Obama is spending the day offering substantive ideas on how to fix the housing crisis, offer relief to middle-class families and end the outsourcing of Wisconsin jobs, while Senator Clinton is playing the same old Washington games." But Obama, with his momentum giving him an air of frontrunner status (though he and Clinton are closely matched in the delegate count so far), faced some criticism from Republican frontrunner John McCain, who called Obama's statements vague.Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American, and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures.
Wisconsin deserves to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter. And that's...not debatable.
Other fun facts: Clinton's camp is suggesting the bad weather could have prevented her senior citizen supporters from voting for her yesterday and agreed to the debate on MSNBC, in spite of David Shuster's remarks (course she had to - she apparently loves debates!). Also, a meeting of Clinton donors seemed more like Festivus, sans the feats of strength, as many were frustrated and resentful. And Governor Spitzer, superdelegate who will support Hillary Clinton (see video below), says Obama is "spectacular."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Classic underdog tactics, begging for more debates. Things are really getting ugly in the Clinton camp.
The "debates" are jokes compared to some of the great debates in history. Perhaps they should do some real debates instead of this made for television rubbish. Take a page from Kennedy-Nixon or Lincoln-Douglas.
All of those, with the possible exception of the last one, would most likely make incredibly boring television for the vast majority of the viewing audience (who would no doubt love to watch a Burr-Hamilton style debate live from Weehawken), but something important would occur. The candidates would have to talk about what they think and discuss it in an intelligent manner and be able to defend it without looking like a moron. It would be a refreshing changes from stump speeches, meaningless one word slogans, and Riefenstahlesque rallies. Actual political discourse. Never going to happen though, since you can't cover your ass that way.
Obama is playing the same old Washington games. Unify around him, end partisan bickering, don't get into specific. Where have we heard that before? From some former Texas Air National Guard pilot who ran for president and by somehow got the job. At least with Hillary everyone knows what they are getting with out all the branding.
And it isn't like the poor guy who seemed to have left most of his mind in a North Vietnamese POW camp or some religiofacist are good alternatives either.
Everyone who is running for president seems like they should be in the Coney Island freak show instead.
The debates have been really boring, and mostly a way for Hillary to grandstand her slick way of talking anything in circles. Yes, she's a good debater, but that doesn't prove a thing for me.
I'm still waiting to hear a good plan from either candidate. I want to see the plans for the budget, the war, national health, all in writing. In WRITING!!! Let them both take out giant full page ads in the NYTimes spelling it all out for us.
Hear, hear!
Rudy XY copyright, TnT.
Ok, I'm shilling, but it's a great video response to "Yes, We Can": NO YOU CAN'T.
nice job hildog way to split the party
Have they had 18 debates? How many of those were one on one after the crowd has thinned?
"...Senator Obama is spending the day offering substantive ideas on how to fix the housing crisis, offer relief to middle-class families and end the outsourcing of Wisconsin jobs."
Forget Day One. By the sound of it, this guy is already at work saving Wisconsin.
Enough with the debates already. Clinton just wants yet another debate because it's free air time.
I am an Obama supporter. I'm a Hillary supporter as well. I'd vote for either in the end. I am, however, a little worried and tend to agree to some degree with what McCain has said (and others) that Obama doesn't really say all that much. He gets people riled up and speaks extraordinarily well, but he doesn't really say all that much. I kind of wish he'd combine the two a bit more: talk about what he believes in with specifics all the while employing that amazing cadence and delivery.
Doesn't this trouble anyone else a bit? Even supporters? Or are we just happy to have a presidential candidate who can actually speak this time?
Actually, cucarachita and others, Obama has put all his policy in writing:
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/
Yeah, I agree with "TheTruth"
Obama has, in fact, put his ideas in writting. It's become a popular form of attack to say that he lacks specifics, substance, ideas, experience. It's just not true. We happen to be more familiar with Clinton's ideas since she was the first lady for 8 years and McCain's ideas since he has been in politics for decades, but that doesn't mean Obama lacks sustance.
Take the time to read Obama's history and check out his ideas on his website before you go ahead believing the political pundits.
Remember, this is politics and there is a lot of misrepresentation going on.
"TheTruth" provided a link to his website, so I won't repeat that, but if you're interested in Obama's history and political experience, here is a brief profile:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/congressionalleadership/p/SenObama.htm
"Doesn't this trouble anyone else a bit?"
It does, but then I realize it's another media lie, like how Gore was a serial liar, or how Bush is a normal guy you want to have a beer with.
To everyone who says Obama doesn't have specifics, I ask: which candidates do mention specifics in their speeches or debates? The fact of the matter is that candidates who mention specifics generally end weaker because they cannot fulfill the specific goals they set in the campaign, and it makes for a such an easy attack ad if you put your specifics in your speeches.
Having a President that can give a good inspirational speech is enough for me. While a President is certainly powerful, people tend to forget that nothing gets passed without House and Senate approval, and while sitting Presidents take the blame or receive the credit for whatever happens under their term, the truth is that a lot of what happens is largely out of their control. A good economy, a bad economy, high crime, low crime, whatever. At best the President might be a positive or negative influence, and be able to push a few key agendas forward.
There are really only a handful of key issues in these debates. Iraq, health care, the economy and immigration. Iraq, Obama and Hillary promise/intend to bring troops home, McCain wants to stay. Health care, Obama and Hillary want some kind of universal coverage, Obama with an opt out, but those are all going to be subject to whatever the legislature works out. Economy, Obama and Hillary want some kind of interest rate moratorium and freeze on foreclosures, and higher taxes for high income earners. Not sure what McCain wants, but probably lower taxes for business. Immigration, I don't know what Obama and Hillary want. I'm guessing amnesty for those who are here, and empty rhetoric to keep our borders secure. McCain has flopped around on this, but right now sounds like he wants to build a big expensive wall on the Mexican border first, and then will offer some kind of path to citizenship.
Of all of these, the only real place the President has power to actually accomplish something on his or her own is Iraq.
Take the time to read Obama's history and check out his ideas on his website before you go ahead believing the political pundits.
I resent that. I'm not "believing the political pundits". I'm talking about his speeches and his speeches are what get a lot of exposure, his speeches are what get most ears and eyes. I have watched numerous people who, when asked why they support Obama, just repeat the words "change" and "hope" and talk about his amazing speeches. They can't really say anything about what he believes in. That worries me. You may not be one of those people, but there are a lot of folks out there who don't know anything about him. (I feel like I'm one of them to some degree which is why I'm trying to find out more.)
I am and have been reading his site since The Truth linked to it. He/she suggested we do so without insulting anyone. I might suggest you tone down your responses if you really want people to seek out information and not merely "believe the pundits".
I'm more interested in if you'll also run Obama's campaign ads in their entirety while saving any perspective for after the jump. If this is worthy of being put up on Gothamist, which is dubious, it's because it's the first really negative ad of the Democratic primary. And if that's the reason it's here there should be more than just a transcript of the frigging ad on the homepage.
mihow,
I didn't mean to offend - I didn't mean to sound condescending. I will take your advice about my tone.
peace.
I'm more interested in if you'll also run Obama's campaign ads in their entirety while saving any perspective for after the jump. If this is worthy of being put up on Gothamist, which is dubious, it's because it's the first really negative ad of the Democratic primary. And if that's the reason it's here there should be more than just a transcript of the frigging ad on the homepage.
JenChungsBra is 100% correct. Candidate who is behind always wants more debates, frontrunners always try to limit debates.
Normally I like debates, however, in this case, there have been several recent debates, some while Edwards was still in the race, and the most recent hugfest with Obama and Hillary alone. Another debate won't be about significant policy differnces, it would simply be a chance to regurgitate the following:
Hillary: You aren't experienced, you voted present X number of times instead of taking a position, represented a slumlord, haven't weathered the vast right wing conspiracy like I have, and are full of empty rhetoric.
Obama: You were wrong on Iraq, can't control Bill, refuse to release your taxes, worked for WalMart, took your picture with a slumlord, and it's time to break free from the politics of yesterday/Bush-Clinton dynamic.
eyekantpel,
I'm laughing out loud at your summary of the Clinton/Obama debates. You're absolutely on the mark. It's a complete waste of time for us to listen to the same "debate" over and over again.
Sorry, Vanessa. You know how it is online without tones, etc. My apologies.
If you have any questions about Barack Obama's policies, go to his website. It's all laid out there. http://www.barackobama.com
Obama = Hollow, empty rhetoric as contrived a candidate as Mitt Romney was...
And spare me the psuedo-MLK wannabe act...sack your speechwriter and finally engage on what we all want to hear...your actual plans for "change" rather than the tawdry whipping-up of the under-21s, the witless celebs and the aeging hippies...
Obama wins this nomination and its another 4 years for the republicans.
Personally, I value his rhetorical gifts for the simple reason that he's smart and perceptive enough able to use them to reframe the misrepresentations which have been and will be thrown at him.
I don't need my candidate to have all the answers fixed in stone; I do need him to be pretty much aligned with my own ideals for the country, and to be smart enough and tough enough to work with people who don't agree with him, and figure out how to solve problems.
Or does someone out there think that just because Hillary's elected, we'll suddenly have universal health care? Last time I checked, there were still plenty of republican in congress.
I don't think obama wants to do anymore debates for the reasons outlined above. I also think that he doesn't want to knock Hillary's initiatives because he doesn't have any better ideas right. His goal is to win the presidency, not debate the finer points of healthcare before he gets into office.
I like both Dem nominees, but the problem thus far is that Obama hasn't been subject to much critism or attack in the primary process. If he gets the nom, the GOP will take the gloves off and fight hard. It will be interesting to see how that shapes up, especially in the Red states.
I wonder if any of the folks on this board who say that Obama has no real positions or substantive ideas would like to share some of their reactions to the actual ideas presented in detail on his website.
That might move the conversation past the "he has no ideas/you haven't read them" phase, and I'm genuinely curious to know what the folks who have actually read his proposals think.
The problem is that nothing is actually going to get accomplished in the next 4 years. Its going to be all about stopping the hemorrhaging.
I'm not talking about what New Yorkers need. We are a different breed and not, as we testify to every day right on this blog, a microcosm of the rest of the world. We would be back on our feet fixing old problems with one hand and changing stuff with the other. Im talking about the rest of the country and internationally.
What we probably need most is a cheerleader since we are going to spend the next 4 years recovering from the reign of idiocy. Hillary is a bulldog not a cheerleader. Obama is a cheerleader.
Too many debates. Hillary needs to get out of the race gracefully. She's done and she knows it.
I just wanted to point out that Obama did not vote to authorize the Iraq campaign, but he did not vote against it either. Abstaining from such a critical vote could be overlooked if he repeatedly voted against funding the war effort, but he did not.
I could never vote for him for that reason alone. He is an accomplished orator, but he obviously lacks moral fortitude regarding the most pressing issue of our day.
Outside of that, his website mostly consists of VERY brief discussions of solutions for a variety of issues, most of which are small. They are classically democratic and would cost a fortune to implement. In this day and age of high taxes, high national debt, and imminent economic decline,it simply won't happen.
No worries about Hillary. She'll just cheat and try to get MI and FL to count.
I have my reservations about Obama. But I don't have reservations about not wanting the Bush-Clinton dynasty to continue. If Clinton is elected, that would mean at least 24 years of two names running the country. Enough is enough.
to polemist -
re just wanted to point out that Obama did not vote to authorize the Iraq campaign, but he did not vote against it either.
yeah, He didn't vote for or against bill that authorized this war cause he WASNT EVEN a US Senator at the time!!??
sigh
For contrast, take a look at any of the other candidates issues page on their website. They are all general statements to very complex problems.
One distinction of the Obama issues are the underlying tones of class warfare. If you had listened to his most recent Potomac victory speech, he'd have you believe that all of America is living in poverty, foreclosure looming, laying awake at night, and completely hopeless because of the actions or inaction of the current administration. He said he was the child of a single teenage mother, who was not born into wealth. His father left when he was two. A negative and bleak message indeed.
His picture of fear, hopelessness, and uncertainty has bought him votes and "momentum". The promise of hundreds of billions of dollars earmarked for aid and all sorts of programs sound great. He'd have you believe that he will hold your hand, and lead this reform through the House and Senate, and trudge past all the local governments that stand in between.
Can you be skeptical? Yes you can. But you shouldn't. Because by doing so, you stand in the way of change.
His picture of fear, hopelessness, and uncertainty has bought him votes and "momentum".
What? I'm not sure what Obama you've been watching. His speeches are known
more for being inspirational but empty rhetoric. Class warfare was Edwards thing; it was a non-starter.
Mostly everyone I know is concerned about the economy, housing, inflation, depreciation of the dollar and recession. The sob story of his upbringing isn't negative and bleak, it's I can relate to you, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth.
Things aren't great now, but vote for me and I will make them better- that's pretty much a boilerplate campaign platform for any candidate.
Here is the Potamac victory speech:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/C7CS
Thanks for the link. I don't read that as a picture of fear, hopelessness and uncertainty or class warfare. It's describing situations that resonate with people who aren't upper middle class, and suggesting that things might be different if Obama were President. Seems like a pretty standard political stump speech to me.
A stump speech certainly.
I read it the other way, that if you don't vote for me, you will remain in a hopeless situation with an uncertain future. I'd have to work a 2nd job at a donut shop to make ends meet.
I don't like being "glass half empty". But there are some lofty goals that were set.
NOT-SO-PROBAMA
Here he comes,
None sleeker,
Pushing hope,
Motivational speaker.