OK...So What Did You Think Of The Austin Debate?

[AGBF]

Well, we have discussed every other recent debate and primary. What did you think of the debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in Austin, Texas tonight? To whom do you think Ohio and Texas will go?

Deborah

 

[FrekeChild]

I''m watching it on CNN now. From what I''ve seen I can tell that Hillary is scared and on the defense though. The part it''s at right now, she won''t even look at him while she''s talking. Now that he''s talking she''s staring him down like it''s a staring contest. Creepy. I''ll continue watching I suppose.

Honestly I think it''s a toss-up. I think that Obama''s momentum could carry him through. At this point I think it''s his to lose.

 

[FrekeChild]

I think the Xerox comment was a big low blow and probably hurt her. Then again, her best moment was the very end. I think it was pretty even. Body language on her part was like a scared trapped animal, shifty eyes, not looking him in the face...

He didn''t screw up at all, and I think that''s going to be her biggest downfall is that he''s just too steady and has a clear handle on what he''s saying. He''s not snippy like McCain and going to fly off the wall like he might.

Unless something huge happens I think he''s got it. The CNN analysts said that he seems more presidential, and I tend to agree. Her body language really turned me off. She needed to relax some.

 

[MoonWater]

Well, I think he did a better job than she did. She got a nice story in the end there, but it was obviously something she planned to use, regardless of the last question. The only problem with that story is perhaps she wouldn''t have seen so many wounded warriors had she not voted for the war. It''s a strange situation she''s in.

Also, I honestly can not believe that she brought up the plagiarism thing again. Is that the strongest attack she has? Obama borrowed an idea from a friend that works on his campaign, it was suggested to him and was very applicable. Meanwhile, Clinton has not only stolen some of Obama''s lines, she''s also stolen from Edwards, Ron Paul, and her own husband. But no one threw that in her face because it''s absurd.

And last, why was she smiling so much? I understand that you want to look friendly, but she smiled at the most inappropriate moments. It was creepy. Maybe that''s a habit she picked up from Bill.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 2/22/2008 12:46:24 PM
Author: MoonWater
Well, I think he did a better job than she did. She got a nice story in the end there, but it was obviously something she planned to use, regardless of the last question. The only problem with that story is perhaps she wouldn''t have seen so many wounded warriors had she not voted for the war. It''s a strange situation she''s in.

Also, I honestly can not believe that she brought up the plagiarism thing again. Is that the strongest attack she has? Obama borrowed an idea from a friend that works on his campaign, it was suggested to him and was very applicable. Meanwhile, Clinton has not only stolen some of Obama''s lines, she''s also stolen from Edwards, Ron Paul, and her own husband. But no one threw that in her face because it''s absurd.

And last, why was she smiling so much? I understand that you want to look friendly, but she smiled at the most inappropriate moments. It was creepy. Maybe that''s a habit she picked up from Bill.

I agree MoonWater. She kept smiling and had this creepy smirk on her face when she wasn''t openly smiling.

I''m really turned off by the fact that she keeps bringing up the plagiarism "issue". Really, I''m only concerned with plagiarism if you''re a college student or a journalist. When you''re a politician, EVERYTHING is recycled. It was immature and made her look bad instead of the way she intended it. It''s the sign of a person who knows they''re losing, she''s getting spiteful and it''s really ugly. I can only imagine that it''ll get worse if he continues winning.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 2/23/2008 2:20:16 AM
Author: FrekeChild

Date: 2/22/2008 12:46:24 PM

Author: MoonWater

Well, I think he did a better job than she did. She got a nice story in the end there, but it was obviously something she planned to use, regardless of the last question. The only problem with that story is perhaps she wouldn't have seen so many wounded warriors had she not voted for the war. It's a strange situation she's in.


Also, I honestly can not believe that she brought up the plagiarism thing again. Is that the strongest attack she has? Obama borrowed an idea from a friend that works on his campaign, it was suggested to him and was very applicable. Meanwhile, Clinton has not only stolen some of Obama's lines, she's also stolen from Edwards, Ron Paul, and her own husband. But no one threw that in her face because it's absurd.


And last, why was she smiling so much? I understand that you want to look friendly, but she smiled at the most inappropriate moments. It was creepy. Maybe that's a habit she picked up from Bill.

I agree MoonWater. She kept smiling and had this creepy smirk on her face when she wasn't openly smiling.


I'm really turned off by the fact that she keeps bringing up the plagiarism 'issue'. Really, I'm only concerned with plagiarism if you're a college student or a journalist. When you're a politician, EVERYTHING is recycled. It was immature and made her look bad instead of the way she intended it. It's the sign of a person who knows they're losing, she's getting spiteful and it's really ugly. I can only imagine that it'll get worse if he continues winning.

I almost feel bad for her. It seems her campaign is just...well...pathetic to be honest. Like she has a bunch of hacks working for her. Not only did she not plan for the long haul and is now underfunded, but who told her to use the plagiarism thing? I mean, in light of the links below, it was a stupid line of attack:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KgwCRfUbZU8&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H60y8mHMpmU

And of course now she's going after Obama over some mailers which properly credit her with supporting NAFTA (why is she denying that she supported this when her husband was in office?) and which tells how her health care plan will force penalties on those that do not pay for health care. He brought this up in the debate and she didn't refute it, but suddenly she's in a rage? She is so desperate to win it's sickening. More and more she acts like the Republicans she always speaks so poorly of. I didn't think she'd be this much of a hypocrite.

 

[musey]

Date: 2/22/2008 1:51:41 AM
Author: FrekeChild
I think the Xerox comment was a big low blow and probably hurt her.

AND, it was a very weak metaphor. If you think about what the actual meaning of that sentence is, she's not really saying what she intends to, IMO. His speech is "change you can xerox"? His speech isn't change at all. It's a "speech you can xerox." But she wanted a soundbyte to counter his "change you can believe in." That really bugged me. I'm not a fan of bad metaphors, they're one of my pet peeves.

Anyway, I actually made a comment about the smiling thing to FI while we were watching--so, obviously that's something that a large chunk of people will notice and be creeped out by. Whoops, Hill.

I guess I was expecting a little bit more from her, after she pushed so hard for yet ANOTHER debate. Thought she might have a little more up her sleeve. But it really was just more of the same.

Can you tell I'm an Obama supporter?

I do apologize for not keeping myself a little more objective and civil.

 

[FrekeChild]

Ooo...guess who I'm a supporter of?

I had such a hard time trying to watch those youtube videos. They just would not work for me. I think I'll try watching them again...

ETA: they still aren't working for me. Both get stuck at 2 seconds into them. Weird. But I did see that on the second one, she's got that ridiculous smile on her face right at that 2 second mark. Oy.

So I tried a different youtube video and it wouldn't work either. I wonder if youtube and my comp are just not getting along? Very weird

 

[widget]

Hi, All!!

I thought the debate was a draw...

I''m an Obama fan, and really want him to win the nomination....but not because I don''t like Hillary. I like her. It''s Bill I can''t stand. Can you imagine what he''s been up to in the last eight years??? I bet the Republicans know, and have made a list!

I definitely believe Obama can beat McCain in November. I''m not so sure at all that Hillary can...


widget

 

[perry]

I have only seen highlights of the debate. I am not that impressed.

I have a lot of very mixed feelings about both Obama and McCain. However, I am clearly an ABC voter for this election: Anybody But Clinton. I suspect that their is a large enough block of ABC voters that Hillary does not really have a chance.

For the primary I voted for Obama becasue I want to see him flesh out his positions with McCain for the fall. I admit that Obama shows promise. Great things are only done by people who can dream of doing them. Does he have the substance to really do them - is a question I, and many, have. Unlike others that I know. I believe that Obama should have the oportunity to flesh things out and demonstrate that he can and has the ability to rise to the challange. I believe that a full campaing against McCain would allow him that oportunity.

Perry

 

[MoonWater]

Hi perry, you may find this link useful in regard to Obama''s substance. Hillary was well aware that he wasn''t all words and no action, but it didn''t stop her from lying anyway. Meanwhile, she co-sponsored many of his bills:

I refuse to buy into the Obama hype (now a supporter)

And I think the Clintons have done an amazing job of showing their true colors during this campaign. It''s funny how they always accuse other people of Karl Rove tactics when it is they that are guilty of it. I guess, if they can''t win, they will simply destroy the Democratic party all together:

Clinton the hypocrite and fear monger

Oh and Andrew Sullivan summed up Clinton nicely:

Clinton''s Last Stand

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 2/24/2008 8:45:38 PM
Author: widget
Can you imagine what he''s been up to in the last eight years??? I bet the Republicans know, and have made a list!

widget

Don''t you mean a phone book? Hee hee hee.

Ok, sorry I just couldn''t resist.

I updated my comp and got the youtube videos to work. Holy crap! Talk about plagiarism! I can''t believe she would rip off her own husband. Lets think about what Bill would say, "It depends on what the definition of plagiarism is."

Ugh. I''m getting fed up with those two. It''s not even like she''s running, it''s like she''s his puppet and he''s running.

This stuff that you''ve been finding MoonWater is pretty awesome. I take it you''re a Obama supporter as well?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 2/25/2008 5:33:24 PM
Author: FrekeChild


This stuff that you''ve been finding MoonWater is pretty awesome. I take it you''re a Obama supporter as well?

Absolutely. I have never donated to any candidate before until him. I donated and then promised a matching donation. I think Bill and Hillary are absolutely disgusting people. They will blame the "vast right wing conspiracy" in a heartbeat and never take responsibility for their actions. Just in how they have handled this campaign alone is utterly disturbing. Do you remember her attack on Obama over the pro-choice issue right before New Hampshire? She LIED, and got other elected officials (that are women) to sign a letter against him: Trying To Heal A Rift (be sure the read the comments from readers to see what the Clintons are doing to the democratic party).

Obama offers us a new kind of politics and a transparent government. She offers us the same BS we''ve had for years. It''s odd that she compares Obama to Bush and Karl Rove when it''s her that resembles them both.

 

[canadiangrrl]

I think Hillary''s toast, says she with the CLINTON PRESIDENT ''08 bumper sticker.

McCain + Obama + election = 4 more years of Republican rule. Remember when Cheney eviscerated Edwards during the VP debates? They''re gonna make mincemeat of the wet-behind-the-ears Obama. Too bad for Clinton - and begrudging cheers to the GOP for a hand well played.

 

[MoonWater]

It's not like Clinton would have won the general election anyhow. I'm not sure why anyone believed that she would. The GOP would love to finally destroy the Clintons and the Clintons never seem to know how to keep themselves out of scandals. For instance the case this man now has against them: Paul v. Clinton

I'm sure the GOP have been gathering info since rumors started that she would run. Heck, they even have a movie prepared: http://www.hillarythemovie.com/ . Not to mention the fact that Hillary loaned her campaign money which apparently was also Bill's money. Bill has been making money from sources that appear to be a conflict of interest for the Clinton campaign. I know the Republicans can't wait to exploit that. Really, Obama has better chances at winning.

 

[canadiangrrl]

Obama has a snowball''s chance in hell. And I live in DC - the land of "IMPEACH HIM" lawn signs at every turn - liiberal and pro-Obama as all get out.

Clinton won''t get the nod because yes, she''s a Clinton, but also because she''s perceived as being strident and overly aggressive. And no matter how far we''ve come, in the back of everyone''s minds, she''s a woman, and that''s unattractive. Add to that the fact that her experience, ironically, is going to work against her, and she''s done. She has the smartest dude on foreign policy since Kissinger in her corner, and one of the two hypercritical issues for this country in the coming years is foreign policy. But she''s going to lose, because people want change.

It''s clear that no one cares about scandal (or experience) as much as they care about change. There have been "alleged" scandals involving Obama (coke, a limo, another man), "alleged" scandals involving McCain (Vicki Iseman) heck, even documented scandals involving McCain (the whole Keating Five bit.) People want change, even if it''s nebulous rhetoric, even if it''s at the cost of experience. They''re fed up with this republic and increasingly, they''re seeing themselves through the eyes of other countries - and it ain''t pretty.

Having said that, as it was pointed out by one of Jon Stewart''s pundits the other night, "People aren''t voting to elect Obama. They''re voting for the CHANCE to elect Obama."

And they won''t.

 

[MoonWater]

Assuming she did get the nom, she would not win the general election, again, I'm not sure why anyone thought she would. Scandals aside, Democrats are absolutely sick of Clinton tactics. She plays dirty politics much in the same way as Republicans and crys fowl if anything remotely critical comes at her. The scandals you listed for the other candidates (Obama and his youtube guy lol), McCain (another Repub, another sex scandal) doesn't compare to the laundry list the Clintons have. Not to mention a lot of their decisions went against the party they were to represent. I've been constantly reading articles and it amazes me how many comments from readers state that if she is the nom, they won't vote for her. Again, I never said Obama would win, I said he has a much better chance than Hillary ever did. I won't even touch the sexism comment because I truly believe most of the dislike of her has to do with what she and her husband did.

You are right, people do want change. They want a transparent government so they can better hold their elected officials accountable. They are sick of scandal and how it distracts from the issues us regular folks face. They are sick of their elected officials hiding the things they do (Why won't she release her tax records? Why won't Bill release her papers as First Lady. Some people would like proof of her "35 years of experience"). Everyone makes this strange assumption about Obama lacking experience because Hillary says so. If Hillary gets to count her entire career, than so does Obama, that gives him 20 years of expereince. Not too shabby. He has been an elected official longer than she has, and his legislative record is much more aggressive and progressive than hers. He has a higher rate of getting his legislation passed and works much better with others. He refuses to take money from lobbyists, PACS, and special interest groups. That's the kind of person we need in Washington right now.

PS. If you are comparing her foreign policy guy to Kissinger, then her campaign will really tank. That guy belongs in jail.

 

[canadiangrrl]

She had a better chance at the day of defeating McCain than Obama does, that''s my main point. The election is a long way off - historically, polls at this point mean very little.

Politics is a dirty, ugly business, where getting elected means straddling many fences, and greasing lotsa palms. The naivete of many Obama supporters alternately enchants and annoys me. The zealotry of some disturbs me. Not tossing you in any camp, BTW. Just an observation.

And I didn''t say that I agreed with Kissinger''s ideology - only that he knew his stuff. Detente wasn''t a bad idea, yanno. And if should be in jail, then he should be in there with a whole raft of dudes, most of whom are now dead. Hindsight''s always 20/20.

 

[MoonWater]

I don''t really care about the polls, just the facts of what I know about the Clintons. I honestly don''t think she can beat McCain. He is very friendly with Democrats and does well with Independents. He reaches a broader base than she does. Throw in the fact that he has more experience and is a war hero...well yeah, I just don''t think she could pull it off. Not to mention the fact that many Republicans are drooling over the thought of having another chance at the Clintons.

And yes, politics is a dirty business. I can just suck it up and accept it or give someone a chance to fix it. It has to start some place. I believe that I should own my government, not the other way around. I''d rather take the chance with Obama losing to McCain than being gauranteed the same ol same ol whether it''s Clinton or McCain.

I still find it odd how people are quick to dismiss Obama''s experience as if he wouldn''t be a successful president. Baffling that people think it''s all "hope" and "speeches." He''s simply a better politician than Hillary (and IMO, on paper, a better person).

 

[FrekeChild]

I''m just going to throw this in...

All of the very conservative Republicans that I know-and it''s quite a few-have said that they''d vote for Obama over McCain. All of them said that they would never ever vote for Hillary. And a lot of democrats are getting frustrated with Hillary and all of the BS she keeps spouting off. I''m tired of her already and would never vote for her.

Just driving around I see more Obama signs than Clinton signs. And I have yet to see any McCain signs. And I''m all over the city, not in a liberal area.

Also. Nader sucks. Why does he keep running for president? Is he a closet Republican? Is he doing it for ego reasons? What is his deal?

And no offense, but DC in general has no idea whats going on in the rest of the country.

 

[musey]

Date: 2/25/2008 9:14:11 PM
Author: FrekeChild
I'm just going to throw this in...

All of the very conservative Republicans that I know-and it's quite a few-have said that they'd vote for Obama over McCain. All of them said that they would never ever vote for Hillary. And a lot of democrats are getting frustrated with Hillary and all of the BS she keeps spouting off. I'm tired of her already and would never vote for her.

Just driving around I see more Obama signs than Clinton signs. And I have yet to see any McCain signs. And I'm all over the city, not in a liberal area.

Also. Nader sucks. Why does he keep running for president? Is he a closet Republican? Is he doing it for ego reasons? What is his deal?

And no offense, but DC in general has no idea whats going on in the rest of the country.

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Even my conservative parents, who are Bush supporters, are beginning to switch loyalties from McCain to Obama.


Also, Obama is really mobilizing the young vote. Shameful, I know, but I was not registered to vote in CA until I caught on to his campaign. Then I made sure I was registered to vote in time for the primary. I know many in my age group who have done the same--and even more who have registered since then, specifically because they want to cast their vote for Obama. I don't know anyone who's done that for McCain or Clinton, and out of all my friends and acquaintances who've made their political stance known, only one is not an Obama supporter.

(Then again, I live in LA, which is known to be one of Obama's strongholds.)

People really underestimate the power of the young vote, IMO, especially in an election as polarizing as this one. Obama has made it a point to reach out to young voters, and he's very, very good at speaking their/our language. We "get" him. I think that that ups his chances out of the "snowball's chance in hell" range

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 2/26/2008 2:06:42 PM
Author: musey

Date: 2/25/2008 9:14:11 PM

Author: FrekeChild

I''m just going to throw this in...

All of the very conservative Republicans that I know-and it''s quite a few-have said that they''d vote for Obama over McCain. All of them said that they would never ever vote for Hillary. And a lot of democrats are getting frustrated with Hillary and all of the BS she keeps spouting off. I''m tired of her already and would never vote for her.

Just driving around I see more Obama signs than Clinton signs. And I have yet to see any McCain signs. And I''m all over the city, not in a liberal area.

Also. Nader sucks. Why does he keep running for president? Is he a closet Republican? Is he doing it for ego reasons? What is his deal?

And no offense, but DC in general has no idea whats going on in the rest of the country.

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Even my conservative parents, who are Bush supporters, are beginning to switch loyalties from McCain to Obama.

Also, Obama is really mobilizing the young vote. Shameful, I know, but I was not registered to vote in CA until I caught on to his campaign. Then I made sure I was registered to vote in time for the primary. I know many in my age group who have done the same--and even more who have registered since then, specifically because they want to cast their vote for Obama. I don''t know anyone who''s done that for McCain or Clinton, and out of all my friends and acquaintances who''ve made their political stance known, only one is not an Obama supporter.

(Then again, I live in LA, which is known to be one of Obama''s strongholds.)

People really underestimate the power of the young vote, IMO, especially in an election as polarizing as this one. Obama has made it a point to reach out to young voters, and he''s very, very good at speaking their/our language. We ''get'' him. I think that that ups his chances out of the ''snowball''s chance in hell'' range

Hahaha Musey! How did you get to be so liberal with conservative parents? Mine are super liberal, and my mom even had my voter''s registration signed and sent in on my 18th birthday just so I could vote against Bush.

I agree with you on his ability to mobilize the young voters. I think that the strides he has made towards getting young people to vote are just phenomenal. People I know that weren''t registered are out there registering because of him also!

Perhaps that''s hard to believe because I''m in NM, a purple state that has an idiot for a Democratic leader who can''t get his head out of his bum and realize that voter turn out would be huge compared to past elections, and a state that had Hillary win by something like 1,600 votes, but he''s mobilizing people and he''s getting people interested in politics. That, in and of itself, is amazing. My cousin, a former Republican has totally changed her tune, all because she went to see him speak, live and in person, and she''s changed her registration to Democrat-just because of Obama.

 

[FrekeChild]

Interesting...

 

[musey]

Date: 2/26/2008 4:53:08 PM
Author: FrekeChild

Hahaha Musey! How did you get to be so liberal with conservative parents?

Haha! Hmm, I really don''t know! I have two brothers, one is conservative and the other is moderate. I''d call myself socially liberal but economically conservative. They often don''t go well together

I remember my dad saying the famous "Young conservatives have no heart, but old Liberals have no brain" many a time. Maybe I took that "to heart."

 

[perry]

A really interesting question is: What is a conservative and what is a liberal.

I happen to live about 1.5 hours from the birthplace of the Republican Party... (Ripon Wisconsin). What those people believed in and faught for has very little relationship to the modern concept of a Republican.

To me: A conservative must believe in individual rights, which includes certain freedoms form women (abortion, etc). That trumps specific religious beliefs (and the religious right is not in my mind inherently conservative).

To me: Telling me that the government has to provide and impose a standard and solution is very left wing; but not exactly liberal (more dictatorship). I view many elements of the religious right as being a dictatorship - and imposing their interpretations and solutions (most of which are not really supported by the Bible).

To me: Liberalism is more of a standard that their should be no standards - or even government help.

Actually to me: My definition of a liberal and a conservative is very close on what they should be standing for; with a somewhat minor difference in how the policies are implemented.

Too bad we don''t really have either concept in mainstream politics today...

What I find amazing is that often the so called conservative religious right and the most left of the democratic party essentially agree on the form of government (closer to a dictatorship); they just disagree on what standards will be jammed down everyone else''s throat.

Perry

 

[musey]

Date: 2/28/2008 7:02:56 AM
Author: perry
A really interesting question is: What is a conservative and what is a liberal.

I happen to live about 1.5 hours from the birthplace of the Republican Party... (Ripon Wisconsin). What those people believed in and faught for has very little relationship to the modern concept of a Republican.

Yes, this is something that is bothersome to me.

I tend to define my political beliefs by what has become mainstream as far as definitions for republican/democrat/liberal/conservative, as opposed to how it all "began." I find that defining it that way is more meaningful and less confusing/misleading to those I converse with on the topic.

My definition of a liberal and a conservative is very close on what they should be standing for; with a somewhat minor difference in how the policies are implemented.

The problem with this is that it implies that everyone should/could have a similar stance on political issues, which (as you are well aware) is just impossible.

The parties and conservative/liberal labels likely evolved simply out of necessity: the reality is that the general population does have very different ideas about what should and shouldn't be "allowed" (gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and a million other things). This makes sense to me, and I have no problem going along with the new "definitions" of political labels. Maybe because politics as a whole is relatively "new" to me, too, as a young person.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 2/28/2008 12:16:24 PM
Author: musey

Date: 2/28/2008 7:02:56 AM

Author: perry

A really interesting question is: What is a conservative and what is a liberal.


I happen to live about 1.5 hours from the birthplace of the Republican Party... (Ripon Wisconsin). What those people believed in and faught for has very little relationship to the modern concept of a Republican.

Yes, this is something that is bothersome to me.


I tend to define my political beliefs by what has become mainstream as far as definitions for republican/democrat/liberal/conservative, as opposed to how it all ''began.'' I find that defining it that way is more meaningful and less confusing/misleading to those I converse with on the topic.

My definition of a liberal and a conservative is very close on what they should be standing for; with a somewhat minor difference in how the policies are implemented.

The problem with this is that it implies that everyone should/could have a similar stance on political issues, which (as you are well aware) is just impossible.


The parties and conservative/liberal labels likely evolved simply out of necessity: the reality is that the general population does have very different ideas about what should and shouldn''t be ''allowed'' (gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and a million other things). This makes sense to me, and I have no problem going along with the new ''definitions'' of political labels. Maybe because politics as a whole is relatively ''new'' to me, too, as a young person.

I agree, if you go back to where it all began, you''re going to get confused, because to my understanding, liberal used to be Republican and conservative used to be Democrat, and so forth and so on. It''s all rather confusing...

BTW, I''m pretty freaking liberal all around.

 

[MoonWater]

I think it''s time we put all the serious talk aside and looked at this:

I can''t stop laughing!!

 

[FrekeChild]

That is so cute MoonWater! He seems so personable! And he can kind of dance!

This one is pretty freaking hilarious too!

I especially liked Wolf Blitzer's part in it...