Ho Hum. Not that I'm not interested in politics. I am. But these debates leave me cold.
New Hampshire Debates
- Thread starter Smiling JOe
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I was shocked that, according to "the experts", there is a 30% to 50% chance that there will be a nuclear attack on US soil in the next 10 years! I haven't been paying close enough attention!!
I don't think there was any good answer to that question. We're going to attack them in whatever state they are? Aren't we trying to do that now? I don't find much comfort in that answer. I would like to have heard that question posed to the Republicans as well.
IMO, the best idea put forth by any of the Democrats was Edwards promising to throw the lobbyist out of D.C. Were it only possible!
I'm still a fan of McCain, but agree he should rein in the jabs just a little. The last one, "You are the candidate of change" was just one too many.
You probably noticed that Sen Obama and Sen Clinton both said that they have people working on that question, regarding nuclear attack in US. That really means, they don't know the answer. Obama said that he would go after Bin Laden if they knew where he was, and Charlie Gibson replied that that was Bush's plan. The others, not wanting to look weak on defense (or is it offense?) basically said the same thing.
Edwards promised not to have the lobbyist working in the White House, but that could be taken literally, and he could set them up in nearby offices. He will work with the lobbyists if he wants to continue getting money. By my calculations, he may not be left with many options for financing.
I also thought, McCain's "last jab" wasn't needed. I thought he was really going to point out something important, the way he paused. It just made him look bad. He may have been hammered in negative ads by Romney in NH, but the candidates forget that the debates are shown throughout the entire country, and we may not see those negative ads, for which he is trying to seek revenge. In the process, he comes off looking a bit childish.
Richardson lost any chance of getting my vote when he mentioned he was open to the idea of diverting water from the Great Lakes to places and uses outside that basin. I love the Lakes, and see that as something that would permanently harm them.
I watched 5 minutes of the debate, but just could not keep my eyes open. Hiliary was getting a little angry, not shrill though.
Bill Russet, I believe, on Meet the Press, this morning, said that Hillary was upset with the people, and she was really shaking her hands at the voters wanting to ring their necks because they weren't following her plan to let Sen Clinton win. I'm paraphrasing. No shrills, but she forgot her Valium and I could sense that she forgot about the speech coaching, not too different from my dog picking up on a scent and forgetting all commands as he begins the chase.
Sorry SJ, I disagree. Romney got what was coming to him. His aloof attitude last night proved that. He ran a nasty smear campaign in Iowa. Here's a man like McCain who has dedicated his life to public service and the military. Romney should have had more respect.
Never said that Romney didn't have it coming. In fact, I pointed out that he may have had it coming. I just note that IMO, if McCain is trying to avoid the negative campaigns, he shouldn't start one on National TV. He had a chance to stand out, by not diving into the mud, but he couldn't resist getting dirty.
It's okay that we disagree on things like this, because life would be very boring if we all thought the same way. We have to remember that our own opinions, even if collectively popular, are only our own, and no one's is better or more correct than another's.
Mango, do you have a front runner right now?
It's okay that we disagree on things like this, because life would be very boring if we all thought the same way. We have to remember that our own opinions, even if collectively popular, are only our own, and no one's is better or more correct than another's.
Mango, do you have a front runner right now?
women!:roll:
well, of course the media must be stumped by a show of actual emotion by a candidate. I guess Hil forgot that she needed to behave like a gentleman. seriously, she should remember that she must present herself more professionally than any candidate in order to be taken seriously, and have a chance in hell.
Looking forward to watching the replay of the debates after all the SoWal commentary!
I kind of have a feeling how I will react.;-) The ones on my short list of "NO" will still be on my short list.
Interesting comments about Richardson. A good one to watch for VP.
Goofer- I am looking forward to our next election party. I told Rapunzel that Super Tuesday could be too much fun. It would be so boring if we were all supporting the same candidate. Keep the date open! And harp on Punzy to have the party.
I'll have the party with bells on. I think, given the fact I'd been a walking zombie all week, it turned out to be the best party I've ever thrown together. I'm all in for a Super Tuesday party.
But what are we going to do about New Hampshire?
goofer, you make the debate so interesting to read about!
I watched 5 minutes of the debate, but just could not keep my eyes open. Hiliary was getting a little angry, not shrill though.
But, I do have an observation/question about this process, maybe some of you can help me out here. I do care a lot about the candidates overall platform and views on the status of America, and I want to know about some of their ideas about their long term vision. But, why do they have to put forth exact policies or solutions at this point? Frankly, I want to hear their philosophical ideas and thinking on how they would lead the country, congress, how they would interact with the international community. I want to know their long range vision for America and global community. What I see is all short term thinking. Current problems/solutions/ideas are certainly critical, but our govt and politicians seem to ONLY do short term thinking and work. I truly expect something more. I know, I know, Americans want to hear what the candidates can do for them now, in the next year or two. I would love to hear someone say just once, "I don't know how we're going to do it, but if I'm president, I will work hard to find the solutions for these problems, we will utilize all incredible resources available in this country, we will redefine our international goals, and most importantly, we will identify what we want our country to look like in 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, 200 years, etc". This is leadership, in my opinion. Otherwise we're going nowhere.
Great post, Toots. I agree with you 100%. I think it's actually a mistake to lay out a step by step plan. Bill Clinton's step by step plans really impressed me in 1992, but I think those plans hamstrung him a bit as President. The plans had not taken into account the different political realities he'd have to face. He became more invested in enacting his plans than achieving his goals.
Tell me your goals, show me you are intelligent and have integrity, and I will support you.
I have to say I'm surprised to see that Hillary is letting her anger and frustration seep out the way she did last night. I'm making an assumption that her advisers and handlers are strongly suggesting that she needs to appear calm, confident and unruffled right now. Shoot, good PR would dictate that she even crank up the nicey-nice at this point. I think she's going to shoot herself in the foot if she can't pull off a more positive vibe overall, especially if she pulls bad numbers in NH.