New Hampshire debate on ABC

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Am I the only one who is even remotely resembling disturbed that Kucinich was excluded from the ABC debate? Granted he is only polling 1%, ....

Yes. I'm all for open formats and democracy, but he's had a year, and been in lots of other debates, and has little to show for it. At some point you have to start cutting things off. At this point in the cycle I think his participation would have distracted from the debate.

This is not the same as Nader's exclusion from the Pres debates in 2000 or even Paul's exclusion by Fox (who pulled 10% in Iowa, strong in NH, and a strong and viable fundraising support, doomed to 2nd tier as he is.)
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,540
1,106
126
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: MBrown
I think Obama as pres. and Edwards as VP would be awesome.

Itll be

Obama/Hillary and Richardson (1st option)
Obama/Hillary and Biden(2nd option)

Richardson will be the first choice for VP for both Hillary and Obama. If he declines the VP will be Biden.

x2

LMAO. Richardson just repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Hes a 1 issue candidate and is obviously pandering to the anti-war left.

"Pull out of Iraq immediately!"

That's why I think he has been shilling for Hillary all this time, to balance out her ~centrist and more hawkish war positions in the hope he could pull back the far left in the general, to avoid a 2000 repeat, w/o actually having to give them something. Combine that w/ the latino vote and he holds alot of cards.

The fact that he was in Bill's admin shouldn't be dismissed either.

The crack about the Obama/Richardson ticket may be a bit too "brown" may not be out of left field tho....

He himself is far more moderate than Hillary. His only real left stance is the Iraq war, the rest are quite centerists. Which isnt suprising since he worked for Republicans before he got elected in New Mexico back in 1982.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: MBrown
I think Obama as pres. and Edwards as VP would be awesome.

Itll be

Obama/Hillary and Richardson (1st option)
Obama/Hillary and Biden(2nd option)

Richardson will be the first choice for VP for both Hillary and Obama. If he declines the VP will be Biden.

x2

LMAO. Richardson just repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Hes a 1 issue candidate and is obviously pandering to the anti-war left.

"Pull out of Iraq immediately!"

That's why I think he has been shilling for Hillary all this time, to balance out her ~centrist and more hawkish war positions in the hope he could pull back the far left in the general, to avoid a 2000 repeat, w/o actually having to give them something. Combine that w/ the latino vote and he holds alot of cards.

The fact that he was in Bill's admin shouldn't be dismissed either.

The crack about the Obama/Richardson ticket may be a bit too "brown" may not be out of left field tho....

He himself is far more moderate than Hillary. His only real left stance is the Iraq war, the rest are quite centerists. Which isnt suprising since he worked for Republicans before he got elected in New Mexico back in 1982.

True, but again this is what leads me to my conclusions. Iraq is the big pushbutton on the far left, and his stances on it borderline ridiculous ("I want them out yesterday" sort of stuff) in sharp contrast to his being otherwise very sensible, clever and astute.

I can't point to any one thing, but watching the interplay between him and Hillary in the debates over the last year it seemed like he always had her back vs the others and moved to compliment her weaknesses. More so than a strong rival should get. However, this behavior was gone tonite, even had a few barbs of his own for Hillary, but was fairly soft towards Obama. I have no doubts given Hillary's surprising collapse that he is covering his bets w/ Obama.

He is clearly running for VP, and really there is no point to be there otherwise for him at this stage. I think if Obama wins NH and further strengthens we will see his outright defection to the Obama camp.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Heres the exerpt for anyone who wants it..



SEN. CLINTON: You know, I think that two weeks ago you criticized Senator Edwards in saying that he was unelectable because he had changed positions over the course of four years, that four years ago he wasn?t for universal health care, now he is. Well, you?ve changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate and now you have changed. You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war; you came to the Senate and you voted for $300 billion of it.

So I just think it?s fair for people to understand that many of the charges that have been leveled not just at me, but also at Senator Edwards, are not totally, you know, unrelated to the very record that you have.

And you?ve said records matter, and I think that we should get into examining everybody?s record.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me - I want John to be able to get in on this, but since this was directed at me, let me just make sure that I ? I address this.

First of all, I never said John was unelectable. Somebody asked me specifically what did I think was the difference between myself and John, and I pointed out some areas where I thought we had some differences. And -

SEN. CLINTON: And you said that he had changed positions, did you not?

SEN. OBAMA: And I did, because I thought that I had been more consistent on those positions.

I have no problem, Hillary, with you pointing out areas where you think we have differences. But on health care, for example, the reason that I mandate for children is because children do not have a choice. Adults do, and it?s my belief that they will choose to have health care if it is affordable. Now, that?s a perfectly legitimate policy difference for us to have. That is different from saying that I will refuse to cover or leave out a bunch of individuals.

And the last point I just want to make on this is ? Charlie, is these are all good public servants, and everybody has great qualifications and has done good things. But what I think is important that we don?t do is to try to distort each other?s records as, you know, Election Day approaches here in New Hampshire, because what I think the people of America are looking for are folks who are going to be straight about the issues and are going to be interested in solving problems and bringing people together. That?s the reason I think we did so well in Iowa.

MR. GIBSON: You?ve been very patient [to Senator Edwards].

SEN. OBAMA: You have, and I appreciate it.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. Thank you. No, you?re welcome. You?re more than welcome.

Let me just say a quick word about this. You know, Senator Obama and I have differences. We do. We have a difference about health care, which he and I have talked about before. We have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change. But both of us are powerful voices for change.

And I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that.

Now, what I would say is this: Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That?s exactly what happens. It?s fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Senator Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story, I think is just not ? that?s not the kind of discussion we should be having. I think that every time this happens ? what will occur every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack. Every single time. And what we have to remember ? and this is the overarching issue here ? because what we really need in New Hampshire and in future state primaries is we need an unfiltered debate between the agents of change, about how we bring about that change, because we have differences about that. But the ? the one thing I do not argue with him about is he believes deeply in change and I believe deeply in change. And anytime you?re fighting for that, I mean, I didn?t hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she?s not, we hear them. And anytime you speak out ? anytime you speak out for change, this is what happens.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: loki8481
if I were McCain, I'd be constantly reminding SC voters that they didn't pick him in 2000, and look where it left them ;)

Why trade a headache for an upset stomach? On military might, MCcCain is only a slightly smarter GWB jr. The dumb idiot still has not figured out why we lost in Vietnam.

if McCain were in the white house, we'd have never gone to Iraq in the first place.

I think that is probably true. And I think this is why the neo-cons wanted Bush in office. The Bush campaign ran some nasty attacks against McCain.

But in supporting the decision, he lost a lot of respect. He basically put party over principle, and that kind of bad support is bad for America.
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckem
I am laughing my ass off at Clinton with her "35 years of change".

Gimme a break Hillary.

Well if the democrates in the debate would have been smart they would have pointed out that her "experence" is Bill's. But, other than Richardson, none of them have any real experience.

Hillary has 7 years of "experience" (in quotes because what has she actually done in the senate) and Bill has the 35 years of experience.

When the democrates realize the lack of experience on their ticket the shit will hit the fan.
Edwards - a 1 term senator who was an ambulance chaser. What did he actually do in politics?
Obama - a 1/2 term senator who was a state senator in Ill. (WOW a democrat that won Ill. call the presses). What has he actually done in politics?
Hillary - a 1 1/7 term senator who was married to Bill. (WOW a democrat that won NY call the presses). What has she, AND NOT BILL, actually done in politics?

Ironically Richardson may become the VP, which looks to be the case, and be much much much much more qualified than their presidential canidate (Hillary, Edwards, or Obama).

Anyone one of the top republican canidates' resume can beat Hillary's, Edward's, and Obama's combined resumes.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: AliasX
I'm not sure other countries are ready for America to have a colored president.

who cares what other countries think about the color of our next president?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
BigJelly, I'm far from a Hillary fan and would probably vote for all 3 of the other democratic candidates before her, but she was very politically involved during Bill's tenure.

I used to like Edwards a lot, I was pulling for him to win the 2004 primaries. Now I'm not so sure. It seems all he does is attack Hillary and talk about how he wants change - he rarely talks about WHAT change, or how he will accomplish it. All I know about Edwards from these debates is 1) he wants change 2) he hates lobbiests 3) his dad worked in a mill. Obama seems to be more articulate in his actual ideas than Clinton or Edwards at this point.

Richardson is very well spoken, and has a lot of great experience, it's too bad he doesn't really have a chance here. Maybe he'll be someone's VP.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: Wreckem
I am laughing my ass off at Clinton with her "35 years of change".

Gimme a break Hillary.

Well if the democrates in the debate would have been smart they would have pointed out that her "experence" is Bill's. But, other than Richardson, none of them have any real experience.

Hillary has 7 years of "experience" (in quotes because what has she actually done in the senate) and Bill has the 35 years of experience.

When the democrates realize the lack of experience on their ticket the shit will hit the fan.
Edwards - a 1 term senator who was an ambulance chaser. What did he actually do in politics?
Obama - a 1/2 term senator who was a state senator in Ill. (WOW a democrat that won Ill. call the presses). What has he actually done in politics?
Hillary - a 1 1/7 term senator who was married to Bill. (WOW a democrat that won NY call the presses). What has she, AND NOT BILL, actually done in politics?

Ironically Richardson may become the VP, which looks to be the case, and be much much much much more qualified than their presidential canidate (Hillary, Edwards, or Obama).

Anyone one of the top republican canidates' resume can beat Hillary's, Edward's, and Obama's combined resumes.

Not if they piss off a lot of married women with that line of reasoning. :)

 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Originally posted by: AliasX
I'm not sure other countries are ready for America to have a colored president.

Obama had independents come out in droves in the Whitest state in the country, so I'd say he's good. There are still a few racists out there in rural areas, but I don't think it is enough to keep Obama from taking an easy victory over the Republican party right now. They're disorganized as a party, and their supporters are a bit tired of Bush. Turnout for Democrats in Iowa was huge, turnout for Repubicans was low.

So while there's a few racists out there, I don't think it would stop with such favorable conditions. You've also got to consider that for every racist non-black there is out there, there is likely a black guy out there that wouldn't normally vote but supports obama because it's sort of a milestone in human rights.
 

AliasX

Senior member
Jan 29, 2006
508
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: AliasX
I'm not sure other countries are ready for America to have a colored president.

who cares what other countries think about the color of our next president?

I dunno, foreign relations? Russia among other countries is still largely racist (last time I went which was earlier this year). Our president is going to have to sit down and have lunch with foreign leaders, and frankly some will expect him to carry out the lunch trays.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
A President can call on any number of advisers with decades of experience and a tremendous amount of expertise on any given area. Experience really counts for little.

In the end, it all comes down to content of character and an ability to connect with people. And to a large extent, its not what a President does, its what the President does not do. Power always has its limits and should not be squandered in forcing through bad decisions.

I somewhat agree that some of the Repubs have the executive experience this year, but its sure not a record to run on.

The worst thing one can have is experience at making bad decisions and learning nothing from it. And its probably why the GOP is going to flop in 08.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somewhat agree that some of the Repubs have the executive experience this year, but its sure not a record to run on.

"Somewhat" agree? :roll:

If we're talking purely about years of executive experience, several of the Republican candidates win hands-down. There's no "somewhat" about it.

However, CHANGE seems to be a popular theme this cycle. And that will benefit the less-experienced...from both parties.

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: AliasX
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: AliasX
I'm not sure other countries are ready for America to have a colored president.

who cares what other countries think about the color of our next president?

I dunno, foreign relations? Russia among other countries is still largely racist (last time I went which was earlier this year). Our president is going to have to sit down and have lunch with foreign leaders, and frankly some will expect him to carry out the lunch trays.

Hardly, but nice try!!
I seriously doubt other countries would have isasues withy a black president.
Especially if what you see is what you get and if he is honest and truthful!

Peace!!