their rankings:
1) Hil Clinton
2) Barak Obama
3) Mayor 9/11
4) John Edwards
5) Mitt Romney
6) John McCain
7) Fred Thompson
8) Mike Huckabee
9) Richardson
10)Biden/Dodd
I can only speculate that they based those rankings off the "candidate vs. candidate" polls --- IMO a very flawed bit of polling as it doesn't take into account the realities of the electoral college. I think you really have to put these candidates in order by political juice --- share of the current audience, how solid it appears to be, and what kind of momentum potential they seem to have.
Politico's political "Juice" rankings:
1) Hil Clinton --- The frontrunner by 7-20% in all primaries.
2) Mitt Romney --- Could double Guliani in Iowa riding it into the GOP frontrunner position.
3) Mayor 9/11 --- Current GOP frontrunner, but IMO a very soft front runner. Under fire from Biden and beset by scandals; could finish 4th in Iowa and implode.
4) Barak Obama --- 20% of the vote is nothing to sneeze at, but has no idea how to attack and opponent. Dead in the water.
5) John McCain --- Everytime I want to throw dirt on McCain's grave he gets another endorsement. If Thompson implodes or quits before the election, the McCain Zombie could come out of nowhere to steal the nomination.
6) Mike Huckabee --- He may be topped out, but 12% is a heck of an accomplishment with no one giving him money. That is a very solid 12%. He owns the religious and gun nut vote.
7) John Edwards --- I do not think he is a real candidate. I think he is campaigning hard, but again the message is good, but I think a lot of people doubt the messenger.
8) Fred Thompson --- Slowly bleeding candidates. I think he has a very soft 17%. He could lose large chunks of his support in the next 2 months as his followers realize he has no forward momentum and they could get squeezed out of the ear of the incoming president.
9) Richardson --- The only reason I don't have richardson 10th is because I have a feeling he has sewn up the VP job for Hillary. His polling numbers have slid as it became apparent to his supporters that he wasn't going to crack the big 3.
10)Biden -- Biden is gaining momentum, but the big 3 are too settled in as frontrunners in the minds of national Dems. I would guess that if they held all of the primaries today he MIGHT finish 4th. There is no question he is miles ahead of Dodd.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Joe Biden for Secretary of State!
Ok, so my boy Joe Biden is not going to win the election. Check out his interview on the troubles in Pakistan, a nuclear power, and you'll understand why I like the guy for his views on foreign policy.
http://www.joebiden.com/contribution/2?id=0014
http://www.joebiden.com/contribution/2?id=0014
zeitgeist movie, very well made, mind-blowing expose' movie
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
This is an excellent, high quality piece of editorial work that investigates the role of the rich elite in American war efforts and the manipulation of our economy. It also delves into the similarities between religions --- which may or may not interest the readers of this blog --- fast forward through that if it doesn't interest you.
I encourage you to watch the movie critically and draw your own conclusions. There are many compelling arguements made in the movie, but a critical mind will do its own research and make its own determinations.
It is a very well-made documentary with high production values. It is 2 hours long and has a 5 minute introduction to set a very moody tone, so watch it when you have the time and inclination.
from the site:
"Zeitgeist, produced by Peter Joseph, was created as a nonprofit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced and the Interactive Transcript includes exact source references and further information.
Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence. Any corrections, clarifications & further points regarding the film are found on the Clarifications page. Non-Profit DVDs / Free Video Downloads are available through the Downloads page.
That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.
Thank You"
This is an excellent, high quality piece of editorial work that investigates the role of the rich elite in American war efforts and the manipulation of our economy. It also delves into the similarities between religions --- which may or may not interest the readers of this blog --- fast forward through that if it doesn't interest you.
I encourage you to watch the movie critically and draw your own conclusions. There are many compelling arguements made in the movie, but a critical mind will do its own research and make its own determinations.
It is a very well-made documentary with high production values. It is 2 hours long and has a 5 minute introduction to set a very moody tone, so watch it when you have the time and inclination.
from the site:
"Zeitgeist, produced by Peter Joseph, was created as a nonprofit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced and the Interactive Transcript includes exact source references and further information.
Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence. Any corrections, clarifications & further points regarding the film are found on the Clarifications page. Non-Profit DVDs / Free Video Downloads are available through the Downloads page.
That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.
Thank You"
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Hillary is in the lead in Iowa; is it time for Edwards to cut a deal?
Hillary surged up to 30% of the Iowa vote in the latest polls, up from 19.5% in April. Edwards on the other hand has slowly lost momemntum in Iowa, falling from state best high of 31.3% in April down to 19.6%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
It has been said that if Edwards loses Iowa to Hillary, he likely is out of the race nationwide. I agree with that assessement.
What happens then? Is Hillary likely to name him her VP? I would doubt it. Edward's base is not going to vote for a republican and among the Democrats out there they are the most angry with the republicans and their policies. They are going to vote in numbers for the democratic candidate come hell or high water.
Would Obama invite him to be his VP if Obama gets the vote? I happen to think Edwards would be a decent foil, but that Obama would not offer him the position. The body language I have seen between the two suggests to me that Obama despises the guy. My take on it is that Edwards is a political opportunist and Obama hates that.
(Plus, honestly Obama, like Clinton, would have a better chance of getting elected with Governor Richardson as his VP, and he would deliver New Mexico and give Obama a bump with voters in key large swing states with heavy Mexican populations like Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. Heck, if the GOP runs Guliani --- A NEW YORKER!!! :P --- with a yankee VP, even my home state of Texas that gets out of bed conservative each morning could be in play in that scenario due to Republican apathy.)
Anyway, as it stands Edwards appears to be on his way to falling out of the race in about 2 months.
What if he cuts a deal?
Supposing Edwards backs out of the race and endorses Obama. I recognize that not all of Edward's supporters will jump to Obama, but I suspect most of them will. They are, afterall, in part supporting Edwards because they are dissatisfied with Hillary's conservative, pro-war stance. Hillary has the highest negative rating in the race, Obama among the lowest.
If Edwards dropped out of the race now and endorsed Obama, it is entirely possible that overnight Obama would become the democratic frontrunner nationwide and in Iowa. As the frontrunner, his campaign philosophy works. In a Clinton/Obama dogfight, Clinton is hamstrung. Obama pulls as much or more money than her. She cannot just bury him under ads. In that scenario, she is clearly the establishment vs. the new blood. She is the war candidate vs. the peace candidate. She has to then fight to max out her potential voting block. The problem is that she doesn't fight well --- often becoming quite catty ---which only further adds to her negative rating.
Edwards could re-enter the race as Obama's VP in a marriage of convenience. Edwards as a southern white man, would help make a black candidate tolerable in less progressive states. Or perhaps to further help the odds of success, the deal could be that Edwards would be Obama's high profile secretary of state for the next 4 years allowing Richardson to be VP and allowing Edwards a lot more freedom in gearing up his next presidential run.
...So, will Edwards deal?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
It has been said that if Edwards loses Iowa to Hillary, he likely is out of the race nationwide. I agree with that assessement.
What happens then? Is Hillary likely to name him her VP? I would doubt it. Edward's base is not going to vote for a republican and among the Democrats out there they are the most angry with the republicans and their policies. They are going to vote in numbers for the democratic candidate come hell or high water.
Would Obama invite him to be his VP if Obama gets the vote? I happen to think Edwards would be a decent foil, but that Obama would not offer him the position. The body language I have seen between the two suggests to me that Obama despises the guy. My take on it is that Edwards is a political opportunist and Obama hates that.
(Plus, honestly Obama, like Clinton, would have a better chance of getting elected with Governor Richardson as his VP, and he would deliver New Mexico and give Obama a bump with voters in key large swing states with heavy Mexican populations like Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. Heck, if the GOP runs Guliani --- A NEW YORKER!!! :P --- with a yankee VP, even my home state of Texas that gets out of bed conservative each morning could be in play in that scenario due to Republican apathy.)
Anyway, as it stands Edwards appears to be on his way to falling out of the race in about 2 months.
What if he cuts a deal?
Supposing Edwards backs out of the race and endorses Obama. I recognize that not all of Edward's supporters will jump to Obama, but I suspect most of them will. They are, afterall, in part supporting Edwards because they are dissatisfied with Hillary's conservative, pro-war stance. Hillary has the highest negative rating in the race, Obama among the lowest.
If Edwards dropped out of the race now and endorsed Obama, it is entirely possible that overnight Obama would become the democratic frontrunner nationwide and in Iowa. As the frontrunner, his campaign philosophy works. In a Clinton/Obama dogfight, Clinton is hamstrung. Obama pulls as much or more money than her. She cannot just bury him under ads. In that scenario, she is clearly the establishment vs. the new blood. She is the war candidate vs. the peace candidate. She has to then fight to max out her potential voting block. The problem is that she doesn't fight well --- often becoming quite catty ---which only further adds to her negative rating.
Edwards could re-enter the race as Obama's VP in a marriage of convenience. Edwards as a southern white man, would help make a black candidate tolerable in less progressive states. Or perhaps to further help the odds of success, the deal could be that Edwards would be Obama's high profile secretary of state for the next 4 years allowing Richardson to be VP and allowing Edwards a lot more freedom in gearing up his next presidential run.
...So, will Edwards deal?
The apparent goals of the candidates in the last quarter before primary season
Democratic Candidates
Candidates:
Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware - Biden is clearly hoping that Mrs. Clinton spontaneously combusts, because the only way he will be on the democratic ticket in the spring is as the Democratic Nominee or Obama's VP. The odds of either are ridiculously long. all that said, it was a good election race to enter for him IMO. He really blew the races with his off-the-cuff day 1 Obama comment. Quite honestly, If that had not happened and if Elizabeth Edwards (who I think DESERVES to be the first lady through her excellent campaigning) did not have health issues that have bonded a portion of the Dem electorate to her husband, Biden could very well have displaced Edwards as the voice of the left in this race and he might be sitting at 20% and trying to make a move past the limp Obama. Although some of it is his own making, with all respect to Mrs. Edwards, I think Biden has had some crap political luck. I think Biden recognizes that he is too much of a high risk candidate with too little political muscle to be a front runner in the race to be Hillary's VP. He is smartly focusing his attacks on Republican front runner Rudy Guliani. That does two things, 1) It legitimizes the moderate Guliani as the frontrunner 2) It points out his weaknesses just as the primaries are beginning. Large constituencies of the Republican party will bail on a likely loser. Biden's strategy really helps the Democratic candidate's chances long term. Biden is probably angling for the Secretary of State job. It should be noted that Hillary did include him in the piling on ad. A warning to ease up?...
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York and former First Lady - She spiked in Iowa last week even with her debate trouble. If she wins Iowa, the nomination is hers.
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator from Connecticut - He is also a possibility for the Secretary of state job, but would also do well in most cabinet positions. I think he had the same strategy as Biden. It is very difficult for a senator from a small state to make the jump to the presidency.
John Edwards, former U.S. Senator from North Carolina and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate - He has been a pest to both Obama and CLinton and I think is not in either of their plans. THey both realize that his voters are protest voters who see Obama and Clinton as moderate poseurs and frauds who are not about liberal values. Ultimately his voters will vote Democrat because of a deep hatred of the republican party.
Mike Gravel, former U.S. Senator from Alaska - If this were Survivor, Gravel would have been voted off the island in week one. TO know him as a candidate is to discount or dislike him. It is telling that he has something like 1-3% of the democratic vote and yet his negative rating is not far of hillary's.
Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio - If only Kucinich was half as hot as his wife. If Kucinich looked like Gary Hart instead of Alfred E. Newman, he would have probably won this nomination. He will get a nice cabinet position under hillary, but if he wants to be a President one day, he needs to do some investing in his physical looks. (I am not hating. American voters are superficial.)He can't do anything about his height, but there are several things he can do. He needs to get his ears done, possibly get braces, to hire a personal trainer, and get a better haircut. His stances are almost as hot as his wife. He just falls short. For America's benefit, I hope he takes the advice.
Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois - Michelle Obama is the only one on that campaign who "gets it". She said months ago that if they were going to win the election, they had to win Iowa. It appears that they are in the process of losing Iowa. Obama falls in the middleground. He has too much of a shot to take it easy on Hillary in case she falters, but at the same token with each attack falls further out of consideration for the VP spot. I have said this before, Bill Clinton delivers the black vote better than Obama, so why would Hillary need Obama? Barring BIll's health faltering, she doesn't. And why would she reward someone who has been kind of a jerk to her over the Iraq war vote with a cabinet position. IMO, there is no reason for that. He has to attack until the end and hope for a CLinton meltdown.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former Secretary of Energy - Richardson has been faltering in the polls, but I suspect it is mainly an acknowlegement that he isn't going to pass edwards and become a serious candidate. He has smartly been taking Hillary's defense lately. I have said for months that a Clinton/Richardson ticket is a winning ticket. I think Richardson gets that and is trying to get Hillary on board with it.
Republican Party
Candidates:
Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City - Mayor 9/11 has about a 5-12 point lead in the national polls over the other republican contenders. In simple terms, he is a soft frontrunner. I think his inexperience in national campaigns is hurting him. He doesn't seem to get how important Iowa will be in this election. Romney has a real shot of doubling him in Iowa. Guiliani might finish 4th there. That will cause some re-evaluaion. I do not expect a Dean-like implosion, but it is VERY possible.
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas - Huckabee has had to talk crazy to land the gun and religious nut vote, but he has done it. In spite leaders in those movement's desires to endorse "serious" candidates, huckabee has wooed the rank and file. He has IMO moved to the head of the list of vice presidential candidates.
Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California - In terms of the race, he should have dropped out months ago. He seems an angry crazy man and I am glad THompson is running to block him from any serious impact on this race.
Alan Keyes, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council - Sigh. You know what role he plays in the Republican Party. Not worth dwelling on.
John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona - McCain dug his own hole by embracing Iraq and trying to push through that fiercely unpopular immigration legislation. He has no one to blame but himself. Bush fucked him in 2000 and in return McCain had Bush's back on the war and immigration in 2007? WTF!?!?!? You don't cost yourself an election propping up the current president. AMerican Hero. Man of honor. Sadly, I have to pronounce him an idiot when it comes to running a presidential campaign. As a VP, I think he is a high risk as Biden is for the Dems as a VP. McCain is done as a mover and shaker in the Republican Party and may want to seriously consider jumping to the Dems in a year or so.
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas and 1988 Libertarian Presidential nominee - The Republican version of Gravel.
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts - Romney really needs to start his media blitz in the other early primary states now. Project Iowa has gone swimmingly, but once you study Romney's history, you understand why. Guy is a top notch executive.
Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado - He needed to get out of the race yesterday. I think Tancredo is too much of a centralist to fit into today's Republican Party. I think if he had come out stronger against the war at the opening of the campaign season he might have gotten a bounce to relevence on his immigration stance, but as it is now he seems to just be upsetting the republican base. He has very high negative numbers. I think he'd do best to get out of the race now rather than trying to attack Hillary. Everyone does that. It won't give him the bump that Biden is getting in people's minds. (I do recognize that Biden isn't getting a push in the polls, but I think both the Dem candidates and the Dem voters think positively about him.) Tancredo should seriously consider jumping to the Dems. He is young enough to be a strong Presidential candidate in future elections, but there is a strong body of evidence that the GOP has no place for him in that position.
Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee - I said that Fred want to lose this primary and I think his recent joking with a reporter about how he doesn't think he will win speaks volumes. He wants to get back to his retirement.
Candidates:
Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware - Biden is clearly hoping that Mrs. Clinton spontaneously combusts, because the only way he will be on the democratic ticket in the spring is as the Democratic Nominee or Obama's VP. The odds of either are ridiculously long. all that said, it was a good election race to enter for him IMO. He really blew the races with his off-the-cuff day 1 Obama comment. Quite honestly, If that had not happened and if Elizabeth Edwards (who I think DESERVES to be the first lady through her excellent campaigning) did not have health issues that have bonded a portion of the Dem electorate to her husband, Biden could very well have displaced Edwards as the voice of the left in this race and he might be sitting at 20% and trying to make a move past the limp Obama. Although some of it is his own making, with all respect to Mrs. Edwards, I think Biden has had some crap political luck. I think Biden recognizes that he is too much of a high risk candidate with too little political muscle to be a front runner in the race to be Hillary's VP. He is smartly focusing his attacks on Republican front runner Rudy Guliani. That does two things, 1) It legitimizes the moderate Guliani as the frontrunner 2) It points out his weaknesses just as the primaries are beginning. Large constituencies of the Republican party will bail on a likely loser. Biden's strategy really helps the Democratic candidate's chances long term. Biden is probably angling for the Secretary of State job. It should be noted that Hillary did include him in the piling on ad. A warning to ease up?...
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York and former First Lady - She spiked in Iowa last week even with her debate trouble. If she wins Iowa, the nomination is hers.
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator from Connecticut - He is also a possibility for the Secretary of state job, but would also do well in most cabinet positions. I think he had the same strategy as Biden. It is very difficult for a senator from a small state to make the jump to the presidency.
John Edwards, former U.S. Senator from North Carolina and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate - He has been a pest to both Obama and CLinton and I think is not in either of their plans. THey both realize that his voters are protest voters who see Obama and Clinton as moderate poseurs and frauds who are not about liberal values. Ultimately his voters will vote Democrat because of a deep hatred of the republican party.
Mike Gravel, former U.S. Senator from Alaska - If this were Survivor, Gravel would have been voted off the island in week one. TO know him as a candidate is to discount or dislike him. It is telling that he has something like 1-3% of the democratic vote and yet his negative rating is not far of hillary's.
Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio - If only Kucinich was half as hot as his wife. If Kucinich looked like Gary Hart instead of Alfred E. Newman, he would have probably won this nomination. He will get a nice cabinet position under hillary, but if he wants to be a President one day, he needs to do some investing in his physical looks. (I am not hating. American voters are superficial.)He can't do anything about his height, but there are several things he can do. He needs to get his ears done, possibly get braces, to hire a personal trainer, and get a better haircut. His stances are almost as hot as his wife. He just falls short. For America's benefit, I hope he takes the advice.
Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois - Michelle Obama is the only one on that campaign who "gets it". She said months ago that if they were going to win the election, they had to win Iowa. It appears that they are in the process of losing Iowa. Obama falls in the middleground. He has too much of a shot to take it easy on Hillary in case she falters, but at the same token with each attack falls further out of consideration for the VP spot. I have said this before, Bill Clinton delivers the black vote better than Obama, so why would Hillary need Obama? Barring BIll's health faltering, she doesn't. And why would she reward someone who has been kind of a jerk to her over the Iraq war vote with a cabinet position. IMO, there is no reason for that. He has to attack until the end and hope for a CLinton meltdown.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former Secretary of Energy - Richardson has been faltering in the polls, but I suspect it is mainly an acknowlegement that he isn't going to pass edwards and become a serious candidate. He has smartly been taking Hillary's defense lately. I have said for months that a Clinton/Richardson ticket is a winning ticket. I think Richardson gets that and is trying to get Hillary on board with it.
Republican Party
Candidates:
Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City - Mayor 9/11 has about a 5-12 point lead in the national polls over the other republican contenders. In simple terms, he is a soft frontrunner. I think his inexperience in national campaigns is hurting him. He doesn't seem to get how important Iowa will be in this election. Romney has a real shot of doubling him in Iowa. Guiliani might finish 4th there. That will cause some re-evaluaion. I do not expect a Dean-like implosion, but it is VERY possible.
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas - Huckabee has had to talk crazy to land the gun and religious nut vote, but he has done it. In spite leaders in those movement's desires to endorse "serious" candidates, huckabee has wooed the rank and file. He has IMO moved to the head of the list of vice presidential candidates.
Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California - In terms of the race, he should have dropped out months ago. He seems an angry crazy man and I am glad THompson is running to block him from any serious impact on this race.
Alan Keyes, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council - Sigh. You know what role he plays in the Republican Party. Not worth dwelling on.
John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona - McCain dug his own hole by embracing Iraq and trying to push through that fiercely unpopular immigration legislation. He has no one to blame but himself. Bush fucked him in 2000 and in return McCain had Bush's back on the war and immigration in 2007? WTF!?!?!? You don't cost yourself an election propping up the current president. AMerican Hero. Man of honor. Sadly, I have to pronounce him an idiot when it comes to running a presidential campaign. As a VP, I think he is a high risk as Biden is for the Dems as a VP. McCain is done as a mover and shaker in the Republican Party and may want to seriously consider jumping to the Dems in a year or so.
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas and 1988 Libertarian Presidential nominee - The Republican version of Gravel.
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts - Romney really needs to start his media blitz in the other early primary states now. Project Iowa has gone swimmingly, but once you study Romney's history, you understand why. Guy is a top notch executive.
Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado - He needed to get out of the race yesterday. I think Tancredo is too much of a centralist to fit into today's Republican Party. I think if he had come out stronger against the war at the opening of the campaign season he might have gotten a bounce to relevence on his immigration stance, but as it is now he seems to just be upsetting the republican base. He has very high negative numbers. I think he'd do best to get out of the race now rather than trying to attack Hillary. Everyone does that. It won't give him the bump that Biden is getting in people's minds. (I do recognize that Biden isn't getting a push in the polls, but I think both the Dem candidates and the Dem voters think positively about him.) Tancredo should seriously consider jumping to the Dems. He is young enough to be a strong Presidential candidate in future elections, but there is a strong body of evidence that the GOP has no place for him in that position.
Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee - I said that Fred want to lose this primary and I think his recent joking with a reporter about how he doesn't think he will win speaks volumes. He wants to get back to his retirement.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Debate Fallout: Round Two for Clinton by wonkette
http://wonkette.com/politics/debate-fallout/round-two-for-clinton-317619.php
Debate Fallout: Round Two for Clinton
by Wonkette
In a matter of 24 hours, Sen. Hillary Clinton went from referring to her presidency as done deal to acting like the victim of a schoolyard beat down. She’s kept a low profile since Tuesday night’s trouncing in the debates, where even her closest allies and advisers said she dropped the ball (“As someone who loves her,” said former Clinton adviser James Carville. “This was not her best performance.”). As she regrouped, Clinton went on the offensive (or defensive?) producing a video titled “The Politics of Pile-On.” And honestly, it just doesn’t work.
Clinton Regroups As Rivals Pounce [WP]
The Politics of Pile-On [YouTube]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zk16oxb4Ck4
In the surface, it appears that this is about liberal crybabies in the Hillary camp putting out something to point out that Hillary is being treated unfairly by the other candidates -- the men in this race -- and maybe that was their goal, but I'd argue the end result is something entirely different than what Wonkette sees.
By putting this out, the Clinton Camp has changed the debate from being about hillary being a flip-flopper to be being about Hillary playing the "victim" card.
Frankly that change in focus has snuffed out much of the momentum that debate COULD have generated. By putting Hillary back under critique by Fox News over playing the victim card, Fox News has in essence normalized Hillary's realtionship with America.
Fox News has been routinely attacking hillary over playing the victim card when she hasn't, so now that her camp actually HAS played it, their criticism lacks teeth. They have, in effect, cried wolf too many times.
I think Hillary has essentially played this get out of jail free card to get out of her debate faux pas. She can't use this one again, but there are other criticisms Fox News has put against her that she can use in the future.
At this point, barring a SERIES of gaffes of equal measure, I am about 99% sure she will win the Democratic nomination.
Debate Fallout: Round Two for Clinton
by Wonkette
In a matter of 24 hours, Sen. Hillary Clinton went from referring to her presidency as done deal to acting like the victim of a schoolyard beat down. She’s kept a low profile since Tuesday night’s trouncing in the debates, where even her closest allies and advisers said she dropped the ball (“As someone who loves her,” said former Clinton adviser James Carville. “This was not her best performance.”). As she regrouped, Clinton went on the offensive (or defensive?) producing a video titled “The Politics of Pile-On.” And honestly, it just doesn’t work.
Clinton Regroups As Rivals Pounce [WP]
The Politics of Pile-On [YouTube]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zk16oxb4Ck4
In the surface, it appears that this is about liberal crybabies in the Hillary camp putting out something to point out that Hillary is being treated unfairly by the other candidates -- the men in this race -- and maybe that was their goal, but I'd argue the end result is something entirely different than what Wonkette sees.
By putting this out, the Clinton Camp has changed the debate from being about hillary being a flip-flopper to be being about Hillary playing the "victim" card.
Frankly that change in focus has snuffed out much of the momentum that debate COULD have generated. By putting Hillary back under critique by Fox News over playing the victim card, Fox News has in essence normalized Hillary's realtionship with America.
Fox News has been routinely attacking hillary over playing the victim card when she hasn't, so now that her camp actually HAS played it, their criticism lacks teeth. They have, in effect, cried wolf too many times.
I think Hillary has essentially played this get out of jail free card to get out of her debate faux pas. She can't use this one again, but there are other criticisms Fox News has put against her that she can use in the future.
At this point, barring a SERIES of gaffes of equal measure, I am about 99% sure she will win the Democratic nomination.
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Iowa Primary: polling result update.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
clinton pulling away in Iowa after debate trouble? --- More proof that debates don't give rise to instant momentum, more that they only open the door to new strategies. Neither Obama or Edwards really are applying new strategies, so they won't win.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Romney maintains commanding lead in Iowa, Huckabee destined to hold on to second?
clinton pulling away in Iowa after debate trouble? --- More proof that debates don't give rise to instant momentum, more that they only open the door to new strategies. Neither Obama or Edwards really are applying new strategies, so they won't win.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Romney maintains commanding lead in Iowa, Huckabee destined to hold on to second?
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Hillary weathers "driver's license" storm? It appears so...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history
The new national polls are out.
10/28/07 (before Hillary's debate debacle)
Clinton - 44% (down 2% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
Obama - 20% (down 4% from the poll on the 22nd)
Edwards - 14%(up 3% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
11/4/07 (after the debate debacle)
Clinton - 42% (down 2%)
Obama - 22% (up 2%)
Edwards - 12% (down 2%)
When you consider the margin of error, it appears that -- like most debates -- this debate had little to no immediate affect. Debates can have long term effects though by introducing concepts that can be played out over time. It appears to me that this will most likely hurt hillary in the general election by opening the door to "flip-flopper" criticisms.
I think ultimately, the democratic feild has made up it's mind on the top 3 for now. Movement is only going to come if Edwards or Obama run away with Iowa and force a reconsideration.
On the republican side, Huckabee and Romney continue to chip away at Thompson and Guliani. I am not prepared to crown Romney the front-runner yet, but I think if Guliani's numbers stay floating in the 23-25% range he will be in real trouble after Romney destroys him in Iowa. There will be a reconsideration there.
10/28/07
Guliani -21% (down from 29% on the 15th and 25% on the 22nd)
Thompson - 18% (down from 19% on the 22nd)
Romney - 12% (down from 15% on the 22nd)
McCain - 14% (up from 12% on the 22nd)
Huckabee - 12% (up from 8% on the 22nd)
11/4/07
Guliani -23% (up 2%)
Thompson - 17% (down 1%)
Romney - 13% (up 1%)
McCain - 13% (down 1%)
Huckabee - 12% (no change)
I think Guiliani and Huckabee are moving and everyone else is more or less staying in place. I think Huckabee has taken a jump in Republican voter's minds to "serious candidate and IMO the front runner to be vice president. I think all 5 candidates had a solid core of 10-15% of the republican voters who love them and the rest are people leaning their way. Guliani should be considered the frontrunner, but this race will be a dogfight.
The new national polls are out.
10/28/07 (before Hillary's debate debacle)
Clinton - 44% (down 2% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
Obama - 20% (down 4% from the poll on the 22nd)
Edwards - 14%(up 3% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
11/4/07 (after the debate debacle)
Clinton - 42% (down 2%)
Obama - 22% (up 2%)
Edwards - 12% (down 2%)
When you consider the margin of error, it appears that -- like most debates -- this debate had little to no immediate affect. Debates can have long term effects though by introducing concepts that can be played out over time. It appears to me that this will most likely hurt hillary in the general election by opening the door to "flip-flopper" criticisms.
I think ultimately, the democratic feild has made up it's mind on the top 3 for now. Movement is only going to come if Edwards or Obama run away with Iowa and force a reconsideration.
On the republican side, Huckabee and Romney continue to chip away at Thompson and Guliani. I am not prepared to crown Romney the front-runner yet, but I think if Guliani's numbers stay floating in the 23-25% range he will be in real trouble after Romney destroys him in Iowa. There will be a reconsideration there.
10/28/07
Guliani -21% (down from 29% on the 15th and 25% on the 22nd)
Thompson - 18% (down from 19% on the 22nd)
Romney - 12% (down from 15% on the 22nd)
McCain - 14% (up from 12% on the 22nd)
Huckabee - 12% (up from 8% on the 22nd)
11/4/07
Guliani -23% (up 2%)
Thompson - 17% (down 1%)
Romney - 13% (up 1%)
McCain - 13% (down 1%)
Huckabee - 12% (no change)
I think Guiliani and Huckabee are moving and everyone else is more or less staying in place. I think Huckabee has taken a jump in Republican voter's minds to "serious candidate and IMO the front runner to be vice president. I think all 5 candidates had a solid core of 10-15% of the republican voters who love them and the rest are people leaning their way. Guliani should be considered the frontrunner, but this race will be a dogfight.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
"Border control Nazi" Lou Dobbs weighs in
For those of you who don't know Lou Dobbs, he is an economist who interprets the news in economic terms on his show on CNN. He is a little full of himself, IMO, but the man is clearly a patriot who says things because he believes they are in the best interest of America. Unlike other editorialists on TV, he is not a political shill for one of the parties.
He is against NAFTA and open borders because they drop the effective wages of the middle and lower classes --- the majority of America --- and contribute to an eventual loss of national identity and autonomy. If our borders with Canada and Mexico are slowly being dissolved, how can we efficiently make the financial corrections to the US economy that history has shown us we have to make from time to time?
Anyway, illegal immegration is his hot button and the idea of NY giving driver's licenses (a legal document) to illegal immegrants sets him on fire, so it is no suprise that he would be one of Hillary Clinton (and the Democrats) harshest critics on these issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3AUf7zUP00
He is against NAFTA and open borders because they drop the effective wages of the middle and lower classes --- the majority of America --- and contribute to an eventual loss of national identity and autonomy. If our borders with Canada and Mexico are slowly being dissolved, how can we efficiently make the financial corrections to the US economy that history has shown us we have to make from time to time?
Anyway, illegal immegration is his hot button and the idea of NY giving driver's licenses (a legal document) to illegal immegrants sets him on fire, so it is no suprise that he would be one of Hillary Clinton (and the Democrats) harshest critics on these issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3AUf7zUP00
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The wolves are out on Hillary
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6634.html
"Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
By: Roger Simon
Oct 31, 2007 06:02 AM EST
PHILADELPHIA — We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.
In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.
It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.
And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.
And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.
Asked whether she still agrees with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.
But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”
NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”
”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’”
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”
And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”
Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.
True, she was relentlessly attacked all night. But she can’t claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.
“Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity?” Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.
“She has not been truthful and clear,” Obama said at one point.
Hillary Clinton will certainly live to fight another day. She still has a huge lead in the national polls, a good staff and a ton of money.
But, in the past, Clinton could always depend on her opponents to lose these debates. All she had to do was stay above the fray to win.
Those days seem to be over."
"Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
By: Roger Simon
Oct 31, 2007 06:02 AM EST
PHILADELPHIA — We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.
In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.
It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.
And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.
And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.
Asked whether she still agrees with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.
But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”
NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”
”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’”
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”
And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”
Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.
True, she was relentlessly attacked all night. But she can’t claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.
“Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity?” Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.
“She has not been truthful and clear,” Obama said at one point.
Hillary Clinton will certainly live to fight another day. She still has a huge lead in the national polls, a good staff and a ton of money.
But, in the past, Clinton could always depend on her opponents to lose these debates. All she had to do was stay above the fray to win.
Those days seem to be over."
RIchardson defends Clinton; 1st step to Vice Presidency?
http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2007/10/guv-defends-clinton-as-his-poll-numbers.html
"Guv defends Clinton as his poll numbers drop
by Heath Haussamen
The bad news continues for Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign. I wrote on Monday about his decline in the polls. Today, three new polls further confirm his sinking support.
To top it off, the National Journal has moved Richardson from fourth in its rankings among Democratic presidential contenders to sixth. In addition to being behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, he’s now also ranked by the publication behind Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.
“The issue we have with Richardson is that he’s a terrible liberal; it’s not in the guy’s DNA,” the National Journal states. “He’s trying to become the anti-war candidate but doesn’t seem like a credible messenger.”
Three American Research Group polls released today have Richardson at 7 percent in Iowa, 5 percent in New Hampshire and 1 percent in South Carolina. All three are drops from the group’s September polls. Meanwhile, Biden has climbed to 5 percent in Iowa, 4 percent in New Hampshire and 6 percent in South Carolina in the new polls.
In the face of all the bad news, Richardson came to Clinton’s defense today, saying he regrets the “negative tone” Obama and Edwards have taken in accusing her of being too close to lobbyists, according to the Associated Press.
“I think that Senators Obama and Edwards should concentrate on the issues and not on attacking Senator Clinton,” the news service quoted Richardson as saying. “It’s OK to get aggressive on the issues, but to make personal attacks on somebody’s attachments to lobbyists, that’s not the kind of positive tone I want to see.”
Richardson – a guy who has accused all three frontrunners in recent months of deceiving the American people with their Iraq plans – also predicted he’ll win the nomination because he’s running a positive campaign.
But his defense of Clinton is raising eyebrows in part because it comes on the same day that Clinton, on her campaign’s official news Web site, took the unusual step of putting up video of and information about the attacks by Obama and Edwards. Clinton also included a link to a news release from her campaign that essentially says she’s being unfairly attacked.
Richardson and Clinton defending Clinton from attacks on the same day? While Richardson is sinking in the polls? What does it mean?
Maybe nothing. Maybe much more than that. It will be interesting to see whether the two are chummy at tonight’s debate."
I think a lot of politicians see the writing on the wall. As of today, I think the movement and tactics of the various politicans say a lot about how they perceive their chances.
"Guv defends Clinton as his poll numbers drop
by Heath Haussamen
The bad news continues for Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign. I wrote on Monday about his decline in the polls. Today, three new polls further confirm his sinking support.
To top it off, the National Journal has moved Richardson from fourth in its rankings among Democratic presidential contenders to sixth. In addition to being behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, he’s now also ranked by the publication behind Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.
“The issue we have with Richardson is that he’s a terrible liberal; it’s not in the guy’s DNA,” the National Journal states. “He’s trying to become the anti-war candidate but doesn’t seem like a credible messenger.”
Three American Research Group polls released today have Richardson at 7 percent in Iowa, 5 percent in New Hampshire and 1 percent in South Carolina. All three are drops from the group’s September polls. Meanwhile, Biden has climbed to 5 percent in Iowa, 4 percent in New Hampshire and 6 percent in South Carolina in the new polls.
In the face of all the bad news, Richardson came to Clinton’s defense today, saying he regrets the “negative tone” Obama and Edwards have taken in accusing her of being too close to lobbyists, according to the Associated Press.
“I think that Senators Obama and Edwards should concentrate on the issues and not on attacking Senator Clinton,” the news service quoted Richardson as saying. “It’s OK to get aggressive on the issues, but to make personal attacks on somebody’s attachments to lobbyists, that’s not the kind of positive tone I want to see.”
Richardson – a guy who has accused all three frontrunners in recent months of deceiving the American people with their Iraq plans – also predicted he’ll win the nomination because he’s running a positive campaign.
But his defense of Clinton is raising eyebrows in part because it comes on the same day that Clinton, on her campaign’s official news Web site, took the unusual step of putting up video of and information about the attacks by Obama and Edwards. Clinton also included a link to a news release from her campaign that essentially says she’s being unfairly attacked.
Richardson and Clinton defending Clinton from attacks on the same day? While Richardson is sinking in the polls? What does it mean?
Maybe nothing. Maybe much more than that. It will be interesting to see whether the two are chummy at tonight’s debate."
I think a lot of politicians see the writing on the wall. As of today, I think the movement and tactics of the various politicans say a lot about how they perceive their chances.
Hillary Clinton debate gaffe video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0uHybfmmY
-----------------------------------------------------
Above is the video that shows clinton struggling with whether she supports the legislation the Governor of NY has proposed that would grant illegal immigrants driver's licenses.
I personally feel that she did bungle the answer by not answering it in politico speech, but that the answer DOES actually make sense. She is IMO not being treated fairly as a candidate on this, but that is life in the fast lane when you are the presidential front runner.
She clearly states in her inital attempt to answer the question that the issue is a failing of national policy, closing with the statements "No state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immegration reform." The words "well intentioned" clearly betray simpathy to the writers of that legislation and also a belief that it in spite of their efforts it may not be an ideal law conceptually.
That is a point that is not reported in any of the accounts. Why is that? Well, in part, because the media is always looking for something to bring in reader and viewers and reporting it in the stilted fashion that they did, did bring in more viewers. Additionally, Clinton and the media have an adversial relationship dating back to her first Health Care legislative effort. When Clinton went back and said the line about "gotcha" it was stating that the media would take this out of context as they would finally have something on her. That does presuppose a lack of professionalism. It should come as little suprise that was what was delivered.
The correct answer IMO would have been to challenge the initial loaded question. (And by loaded, I do not fault Tim Russert. A loaded question is a fair tool for a debate because every candidate will voice an opinion from time to time that they might want back. A loaded question often digs up these statements and forces a candidate to weigh their answer. The question is a fair one for a reporter to ask of a candidate.)
Tim Russert: "Senator Clinton, Governor of NY Elliott Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immegrants, you told the national new hampshire editorial board 'it makes a lot of sense', why does it 'make a lot of sense' to give an illegal immegrant a driver's license?"
IMO the correct answer: "Tim, that is taken out of context. The truth is the National government has failed the state governments by failing to enact a coherent and sensible immigration policy. This puts our states in the awkward situation of having to write laws to cover issues that come out of that. Gov. Spitzer is doing his best to address the immediate concerns of New Yorkers because the national Government under Bush has failed to address the issue in a sensible fashion. It would be irresponsible for him not to try to come up with a stopgap solution to protect NY citizens. If I am elected we will have that coherent national immegration policy and we will free the states from having to take action on immigration law."
That's probably a 60 second answer for a supposed 30 second slot, but she took about 50 seconds anyway.
Hillary was not sharp, she spent about 15 seconds of her time revealing that we have illegal immegrants. You have to get into the meat of a question like that a lot quicker. Additionally, she attempted to back up the Governor's policy on this and took a big hit over it. She should not have backed the policy as it is halfbaked liberal garbage. She should have backed the man instead, by bemoaning the fact that he is being forced to write halfbaked liberal garbage to offer a minimum of protetction for his citzens to cover the failings of the Bush administration.
Ultimately her defense of the governor's policies cost her. Maybe he will help her land NY and the surrounding states in the election. He clearly owes her. Time will tell if this worked out for her, but for now we all want to know if this is the gaffe that drops her back into a real race with Obama and Edwards.
-----------------------------------------------------
Above is the video that shows clinton struggling with whether she supports the legislation the Governor of NY has proposed that would grant illegal immigrants driver's licenses.
I personally feel that she did bungle the answer by not answering it in politico speech, but that the answer DOES actually make sense. She is IMO not being treated fairly as a candidate on this, but that is life in the fast lane when you are the presidential front runner.
She clearly states in her inital attempt to answer the question that the issue is a failing of national policy, closing with the statements "No state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immegration reform." The words "well intentioned" clearly betray simpathy to the writers of that legislation and also a belief that it in spite of their efforts it may not be an ideal law conceptually.
That is a point that is not reported in any of the accounts. Why is that? Well, in part, because the media is always looking for something to bring in reader and viewers and reporting it in the stilted fashion that they did, did bring in more viewers. Additionally, Clinton and the media have an adversial relationship dating back to her first Health Care legislative effort. When Clinton went back and said the line about "gotcha" it was stating that the media would take this out of context as they would finally have something on her. That does presuppose a lack of professionalism. It should come as little suprise that was what was delivered.
The correct answer IMO would have been to challenge the initial loaded question. (And by loaded, I do not fault Tim Russert. A loaded question is a fair tool for a debate because every candidate will voice an opinion from time to time that they might want back. A loaded question often digs up these statements and forces a candidate to weigh their answer. The question is a fair one for a reporter to ask of a candidate.)
Tim Russert: "Senator Clinton, Governor of NY Elliott Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immegrants, you told the national new hampshire editorial board 'it makes a lot of sense', why does it 'make a lot of sense' to give an illegal immegrant a driver's license?"
IMO the correct answer: "Tim, that is taken out of context. The truth is the National government has failed the state governments by failing to enact a coherent and sensible immigration policy. This puts our states in the awkward situation of having to write laws to cover issues that come out of that. Gov. Spitzer is doing his best to address the immediate concerns of New Yorkers because the national Government under Bush has failed to address the issue in a sensible fashion. It would be irresponsible for him not to try to come up with a stopgap solution to protect NY citizens. If I am elected we will have that coherent national immegration policy and we will free the states from having to take action on immigration law."
That's probably a 60 second answer for a supposed 30 second slot, but she took about 50 seconds anyway.
Hillary was not sharp, she spent about 15 seconds of her time revealing that we have illegal immegrants. You have to get into the meat of a question like that a lot quicker. Additionally, she attempted to back up the Governor's policy on this and took a big hit over it. She should not have backed the policy as it is halfbaked liberal garbage. She should have backed the man instead, by bemoaning the fact that he is being forced to write halfbaked liberal garbage to offer a minimum of protetction for his citzens to cover the failings of the Bush administration.
Ultimately her defense of the governor's policies cost her. Maybe he will help her land NY and the surrounding states in the election. He clearly owes her. Time will tell if this worked out for her, but for now we all want to know if this is the gaffe that drops her back into a real race with Obama and Edwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)