Democrats And America Won Tonight

By Big Tent Democrat

From the moment they walked out on the stage, an African American and a woman, the Democrats won. Whomever wins the nomination, whomever wins the election, Democrats won. And America won.

Eugene Robinson said that that was the most electric moment of the night, and it was for me too. I did not expect to feel that way. I knew this already. But seeing it made it different. It just did. John Edwards said he was getting out of the way of history. And as powerful as his message and campaign were, he was right.

Folks can try and figure out the tactical who won or lost, and I will, tomorrow. But tonight I feel proud of my Party and yes, proud of my country.

< Hillary - Obama: The Conciliatory Debate ( Post-Debate Thread) | Late Night: Love Shack >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:30:16 PM EST
    You seem more right than ever about what the ticket will look like: they'll both be on it.

    John McCain's broken down bus and Mitt Romney's creepy smile can't take this election from the Democrats.

    They were both terrific tonight (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:35:42 PM EST
    As I say, I have some thoughts on the tactics, but I was overwhelmed by the history.

    what r your thoughts on the (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM EST

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:47:43 PM EST
    I was going to write a post about it tomorrow but a quick preview is this - I think Hillary concentrated on neutralizing the carping on negativity and showing her self to people. In essence bringing the focus back to her, her personality and her strengths.

    I believe Obama's performance was the best he has given in the campaign. Especially for someone like me. He was hard on the Republicans, specific on issues, extremely funny and personable, his decency shined through , ESPECIALLY for me in his "don't scapegoat immigrants" answer.

    My support for him has never been LESS tepid. I was enthused at times.

    That said, I think Hillary got more done tonight. Remember the dynamic was not good for her at this time.

    But when she is getting extremely kind words at DAILY KOS, I think we can say pretty clearly that she got much more done than he did.

    That said, I am not sure what he could have done differently. Going on the attack would have been a mistake I think. He pressed is Iraq advantage beautifully.

    The fundamental of the campaign remain the same. But Hillary cut through a lot of the chaff tonight. In essence. she got to speak to the American People unfiltered by Media bias, and as often happens, the Media paints an orge and then meets a wonderfully decent, brilliant person and ends up wondering what the Media is talking about.

    Josh Marshall writes that Obama won because his debate expectations were lower. I think that misses the real point - HILLARY's expectations  as a PERSON were much lower. And she easily exceeded them.


    what a beautiful review o it BTD (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:02:56 PM EST
    and I could not agree with you more about Hillary..Also I think that Obama has to get over his habit of lifting his chin slightly and having a dour expression on his face...It isnt flattering...and gives him a slightly imperious look...

    The great thing about it is (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:07:41 PM EST
    that the right thing POLITICALLY for BOTH of them was so good for the PArty as a whole.

    It does not often work out that way.

    Consider that this is surely the most watched primary debate EVER.

    What a wonderful 2 hour advertisement for the Dem Party and for Dem values.

    Who could ask for more?


    it sure did a lot for me (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:47:04 PM EST
    because I was on the verge of giving up because of the constant carping of the media and all the nasty Obama supporters online...but this tonite was refreshing and a great and needed change...

    Totally (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:49:34 PM EST
    I sat through most of it just thinking "I'm a Democrat!"  Terrific night for it.

    Great Observations (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:11:02 AM EST
    I think you've nailed it, BTD. And I love your observation of the power of the moment when the two of them walked in. It hit me the same way. I'm 54 years old, and thought I would never live to see this day. This is why I'm a democrat. It knocked my socks off!

    exactly (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:39:29 PM EST
    Democrats And America Won Tonight (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Salt on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
    You should feel proud of your Party, they appear to have pulled themselves back from the brink. I know I had almost had it with the attacks on the Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton from within the Party, hopefully that is over and they realize she has a massive fan base as well.

    I think some people (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:50:17 PM EST
    will feel a little ashamed of themselves tonight.

    btd, people with a conscience might (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    feel ashamed of themselves. but the repubs don't appear to have a collective or individual conscience. they will come with their attacks both real and lies very soon. they are our real enemy.

    Seeing the photos of the Republican (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:40:50 PM EST
    debates really underscores how hide-bound that party is.  I cannot envision a woman and a man whose father was black participating in a Republican Presidential debate.  In fact, despite Rush, Hannity, and Medved, proclaiming Romney is the conservative, Reagan legacy candidate, and that staying in Iraq 100 years is a good thing, Romney's "otherness," i.e., his religion, may be a stumbling block for some Republicans.

    More than that (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:51:42 PM EST
    though that is part of it, EVERYONE can see that this African American and this woman are CLEARLY the most superior candidates there are.

    They might not win in November, but everyone knows they are the best.


    I won't be stuck in LA traffic tomorrow (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:58 PM EST
    but I may listen to am talk radio anyhow to see if there has been any change there.  

    Yes, I agree, the Dems. have two very fine candidates.


    Shark frenzy (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:59:06 PM EST
    I really am having a hard time with the noise the last few months in talk radio. Cannot do it anymore. Back to Pacifica Radio.

    I've never listened to the rabid right (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:02:45 PM EST
    before; just trying to figure out how they think; pretty intriguing, as I am treating it as an educational experience and then I don't get upset.

    Guess what? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM EST
    Affirmative action worked. We did have to break the barriers and let women and different groups in to the system. Diversity works. Listen, watching the Republican, really felt to me like watching Marie Antoinette and the French royalty at the end, while they have no clue what is going on in their country.

    Heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:58:10 PM EST
    For this time, it certainly worked.

    John McCain got AA too (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    The kind that people don't talk about as much.

    In his life? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:03:40 PM EST
    BEcause of his dad? Yep.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:03:18 PM EST
    BTD got it. (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:08:05 PM EST
    Duh, of course BTD got it. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:16:22 PM EST
    Now that I've googled, it seems his selection to West Point resulted from the stellar careers of his father and grandfather, not his own lackluster academic performance.  

    THEY, together, cannot lose in Nov (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM EST
    don't start making excuses now, in Jan.

    I expect they will win (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:05:08 PM EST
    But who knows?

    There will be no Obama/Clinton ticket (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:25 PM EST
    And not due to rancor or ego. It simply does not make sense.

    Clinton does not help Obama.

    But Obama does help Clinton.

    I mean this not as any slight on either, nor am I saying IN THIS COMMENT that Obama is more electable.

    It is just that the dynamics are such that this is true.

    Somebody else said it but it bears repeating (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:15:15 PM EST
    You can't plug a generic woman in as VP for Obama any more than you can plug in a generic AA as VP for Clinton.

    This woman, and this man, are the ones we want. Clinton/Obama, in that order.


    I disagree in that I think Clinton helps Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:02:49 PM EST
    a lot in bringing out lower income women who almost never vote.  I got a haircut today and the woman who cut my hair is stoked about voting for Hillary.  She is 35 years old and has never voted before.  Without Hillary on the ticket, this person will not vote and that's true for lots of people.

    I think Clinton is not a NET plus for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:04:16 PM EST
    Then you're hanging out with the wrong people (none / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:08:15 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:13:05 PM EST
    I am not sure what that has to do with it.

    It is my opinion which is NOT based on what people around me say.


    I agree with you, but my opinion is (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:18:18 PM EST
    based on what people around me say.  Lots of HRC doubters, although they will vote for Obama no matter who his VP running mate is.  I figure if my Dem. friends, who I expected to favor HRC, do not support HRC now, there must of be lots of others who never will.  

    Ralph I agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:34:58 PM EST
    with BTD on that as Hillary would be better served in the senate than as a VP

    Second opinion (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:38:41 PM EST
    We need to rethink the VP. Hate to use Bush and Cheney, but whatever happens, I want someone with Hillary's skills in making government work. She pays attention to details and knows how to do these things. So I can see that, But that blocks the potential cake walk to presidency in 8 years for dems. That is why I think the old geezers not letting the candidates fight it out and the people to make a decision sort of poisoned the well.

    PS (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    I really think that Kerry, Ted etc, don't get it, we did not need their advice, the American people will do the torch passing. I found that whole thing very patronizing and yes sort of insulting to women. Like, they had to step in to make sure the woman did not get it. I know all the fear of the Hilton hate, but they made it worse. They had to let it play itself out.

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:20:13 AM EST
    Can you clarify?  Are you saying that you think that Kerry and Kennedy endorsed Obama because they didn't want a woman as President?

    They don't want this woman, anyway (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:29:51 AM EST
    and who else is in the pipeline on the Dem side with anything near her smarts, experience, etc.?

    In the Kennedy/Kerry world, presidents go to Hahvard or Yale -- not Wellesley.  Even if her Wellesley commencement speech, a rare honor in itself, got her coverage in Life magazine . . . at the age of 22.

    If not this woman, who?  If not now, when?


    Heads You Lose (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    Tails I win?  And by that illogic everyone that endorsed Clinton is racist.

    Race card (none / 0) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    Interesting bits from Obama speeches in LA Obama plays race card

    BS (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    So you think that TL also plays the "race card". No Human is illegal illegal, whatever color or nationality they are.

    I'm not saying that she'd accept if offered (none / 0) (#60)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:41:17 PM EST
    but I tend to talk to lots of people, like the lady who cut my hair, and it's a trend that I've noticed.  They are not regular voters but will vote for her.

    Sometimes anecdotal evidence is good, since polling sucks so bad.  By the way, I don't see anyway she'd want the VP slot.

    This is so good, I can't resist.  On Fox, Ann Coulter endorsed Clinton for president.

    This is great. Not because i think she'll inspire Republicans to go then vote for her, but this shows how much some conservatives HATE John McCain.


    Her turnout is hugely Republican women (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:35:24 AM EST
    it seems; see pollster.com analysis.  Women, of course, have voted more than men for decades now, but even more so in this season, in which women have been increasingly the larger share of the voters, even 60% or so.  That is remarkable -- and the analysis (based on exit polls, admittedly) says that is because Clinton is not only bringing out Dem women as much or more than before (with the exception of South Carolina, where Obama also brought out more black women) -- she also is bringing over Republican women.  

    The question, then, is why hasn't Obama been bringing out the men?  If he could, and could keep the Republican women (perhaps doubtful, but ?) -- we would have the White House, period.


    I've never been prouder to be a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:56:26 PM EST
    than right now.  Both of them were gracious, charming, and could blow the republicans out of the water.  Let's get ready to rumble in November!

    It was a very good debate (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:08:02 PM EST
    for the party, in particular. And by extension, it honestly does make me think that, regardless of their supporters and surrogates, both of them are willing to set aside the ego and rancor when needed to build the party. That builds my esteem for them both immensely.

    I can't call a "winner", at all. Both hit well on different points where they differ, and on the many places where their policies are similar, they both built each other's cases.

    In terms of crass politics, I'll have to think about whether this helped either of them particularly more or less. I can make a case either way. But I do know that it made the pettier of their supporters' arguments look downright lame, and nothing was more needed right at this moment than that, IMO.

    Agree with most of it (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:14:45 PM EST
    I think it helps Hillary somewhat but not because Obama did anything wrong. This was easily his finest debate performance.

    See my repsonse to Athyrio below for my quick take.

    The rest of your comment is dead on imo.


    You might be right (none / 0) (#53)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:18:58 PM EST
    I'm sleeping on that analysis. Certainly both came out looking better than I've seen in any debate so far.

    It's hard to get me worked up about where we are, as I'm about as cynical as they come, but they both done me proud tonight. I'm taking that to bed.


    One snark (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:35:19 PM EST
    I think what the tone did today, it made the Old guy senators and Bill just as irrelevant as the Republicans. These two don't need their shoulders to stand up for America.

    I can't remember when I've (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:39:43 AM EST
    been so relieved.  I can breathe again and the knot is gone from my stomach.

    For the first time, Obama came across as a Democratic candidate.  It was his best night in a debate and one of Hillary's best.

    Makes you proud to be a Democrat.  Now if only the supporters will follow suit...not holding my breath on that one and the mailings from 527s and even the campaigns will be pretty tough is my bet.  But the visuals alone should make it pretty clear that racism and sexism are not cool with the Democratic Party.

    A proud night all around.

    Except for Wolf, of course.  

    Ye Gods.

    Enough, already! (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by JHFarr on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:06:54 AM EST
    If I have to look at another comment with the subject line consisting of the first half of the opening sentence, I'm gonna do something dangerous. Whoever started this idiotic custom should be sent out on a snipe hunt in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    It isn't natural. It makes your eyes go backwards.

    Lighten up, Francis. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:29:46 AM EST
    Notice you're the ONLY person on the ledge over this issue.  Time to reassess and regroup.  Have a danish.  Breath.

    Gee whiz...it isn't a problem (none / 0) (#75)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:30:40 AM EST
    for me.

    Are you Chinese?


    Man. this just felt good (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:37:24 PM EST
    I got my policy wonking fulfilled. I love it when Hillary gives policy details. Immigration and healthcare. I still don't get what she would get policially if she said she was wrong? It's a big loser in the GE. Judgement applies when you had responsibility to make a decision. Opinion is when you did not. Based on his record, Obama would have voted with the majority. But that is so hard to explain in a debate and just the opinion seems to matter to the supporters. So, I don't buy the judgement advantage.

    On that point (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    Nothing to be gained and nothing to be lost.

    I was watching NBC again getting prepared to expect some atrocities and all I really got was some wrongheaded thinking, especially from Josh Marshall.

    At this point, anyone who is going to vote on the Iraq vote has already decided for Obama. While it was fun to talk about, and let's be clear, imo Hillary's vote is really indefensible, I doubt it has impact.

    Marshall seems to think there were viewers who might be just discovering Obama was against the war in 2002 and Hillary voted for the war. I submit if they are just finding that out, then it could not be a decisive issue for them.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    I don't think the general voter cares. And Rachel Maddow's outrage about this, what is the point? I agree. The majority of the Senate and House were cowards. Mine Barbara Lee was not, she even voted against Afghanistan. I don't understand what they want her to say? It would be suicide for the GE remember how Kerry got caught with that?

    I thought she went on too long (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:49:36 PM EST
    and I thin Obama exploited the opportunity very deftly, but all the juice has been wringed out of that issue already.

    Yep (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:52 PM EST
    Hope the bickering stops about it. I will behave better. I think the country is ready to change, change from the Republicans and bring back out from the closet, that government can be good, that government can make lives better, that we don't have to abdicate our democracy to the free market. Now my question, is that perception that the country is ready true? I think so, but I need a bit more convincing.

    I thought perhaps she was (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:57:19 PM EST
    gearing up for the GE with that response, although it seemed too rambling and weak to me.

    Obama may keep milking it, but (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    I think you're right that those to whom it matters, know well by now that he says he would have voted against the war, if he had been in the Senate, etc.

    So he ought to let it rest -- because it actually is oddly and clearly counter to his message that he looks not to the past but to the future.  If so, why keep bringing up the past, and only to attack the opponent?  Talk about the economy, Obama, if you want to try to win more voters, those from Clinton's demog of the working class.  Right now, that's what they're worried about -- and the economy will only get worse.

    But since I'm for Clinton, fine.  Keep talking about five years ago.

    (Note:  I also found that vote of hers indefensible; I read in the British press then that the WMD documents were iffy, etc.)


    Madow's explanation of why she (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:52:08 PM EST
    cares about HRC's explanation of her vote:  it is very personal for Madow.  

    It's very personal to me (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    I care about it. I DO hold it against Clinton.

    And I think Obama has a point on being able to really hit Iraq hard - he is better positioned for that.

    But that does not mean I think that THIS exchange tonight meant much of anything. It simply is not new to anyone who actually is going to vote on that issue.


    True. And a voice in my head (Bill Clinton's, (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:58:41 PM EST
    actually) reminded me that when Obama reached the U.S. Senate, he voted for funding and supported Bush.  

    There's a lot of water under the bridge (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:58:06 PM EST
    for both candidates. Iraq is a rather significant part of it for Hillary (to a lesser degree for Obama).  But it all seemed like old news tonight. It isn't--the issues still matter--but there was something essential that just worked tonight.

    I think you and Gene got it right.


    It was great to hear that from Robinson (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:02:13 PM EST
    He lovces Obama, and yes, I think it is very big for him personally as it should be.

    But he was the good person he seems to be when he acknowledged the TOTALITY of the history.

    Remember when I wrote about one of the benefits of Obama on the ticket for Hillary is the reinforcement of the historical nature of HER run.

    Didn't you feel that for the first time, that REALLY came across and that the MEdia HAD to acknowledge it?

    This is one of the benefits of Obama as runnig mate for Clinton I think it is undeniable now. I believe therre is NO WAY now that Obama is NOT Clinton's running mate if she wins the nomination.  


    The first thing I thought when I heard (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:06:36 PM EST
    that Edwards was dropping out was that, for the first time in history, the Democratic party was NOT going to nominate a white guy. Full Stop. The debate reinforced that, and they both seem right.

    I think the ticket is going to be Clinton/Obama, and in 8 years, 12 months, we'll have our first black President. I've been unsure about that lately, and as a historian I know that nothing is inevitable, but It's hard for me to see how we avoid that.


    The one thing I a MOST sure of is (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:11:19 PM EST
    That Barack Obama will be the President of the United States.

    It may be 2009.

    It may be 2013.

    It may be 2017.

    But he will be President of the United States.

    I predicted it in 2005. I am POSITIVE now that it will happen. Not a shadow of a doubt.


    Probably (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:14:01 PM EST
    Now about the unity schlock. . .

    Not much of that tonight ay? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:16:40 PM EST
    nope, thankfully (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:19:55 PM EST
    Dems should work now to erase the nonsense (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:24:42 AM EST
    That Dems share "half" the responsibility for the most corrupt, opaque and flagrantly contemptuous administration in modern memory.

    Don't get me wrong: there is absolutely no excuse for any elected public servant to abandon his or her duty, and lock-stepping, wagon-circling Repugs who knowingly banded together to enable domestic persecution and abroad, crimes against humanity.

    However, eight years of the fascist practice of shutting out the populace and literally privatizing the people's government and resources for cronies shouldn't lightly be dismissed as bygones. Digby had an interesting post about the various landmines the worst admin evah had laying in wait for BushCo's successors.

    When the media press RW talking points about more tax "relief" for the wealthy and start blaming Dems for figuring out how to pay for the looting spree, ALL DEMS RUNNING FOR OFFICE should unite and vow to draw back the curtains and open the books for a full and honest accounting from the crooks who masterminded and pulled off this lying, sneaky, borrow and spend looting spree.

    After that my high hope was that a worthy Dem Prez and more fearless Dem congress would get a few truly Liberal judges on the SCOTUS with as much ease as scAlito got on. Someone to the left of SDO'Connor seemed impossible a couple of weeks ago but now my imagination is drifting more towards hurgood Marshall.


    I really like HRC's immigration topic (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    rant on, just how many federal law enforcement officers do you think it would take to go door to door to ferret out each and every undocumented person living in the U.S.?  Reality check indeed.  

    Wow I thought that was a poor answer (none / 0) (#44)
    by s5 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:12:32 PM EST
    You could say the same about the war on drugs. How many officers would it take to search every home for pot? You don't need a perfect storm of enforcement to ruin lives.

    And if there were a big enough constituency (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    that voted on drugs policy, I can guarantee you that someone would make that argument.

    So substitute anything else (none / 0) (#55)
    by s5 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:27:27 PM EST
    My point is that it's a weak response. Immigrants and families of immigrants will not find comfort in "we'll still have laws that hassle you but if you're lucky we won't enforce them very well".

    Your response tells me I'd better stop (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:30:39 PM EST
    listening to am talk radio!  Of course HRC's discussion of immigration policy included much more than this rant and she didn't seem to be speaking to Democratic voters on that one, but rather to the kick em all out now folks.

    that type of comment was aimed at the (none / 0) (#87)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    general election. mccain was a sponsor in the senate of the bill as i recall on immigration. hasn't he recently changed his position. i seem to recall reading that. sorry to be off topic here. i'll reform.

    McCloughlin report style;;; (none / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:02:42 AM EST
    Issue from now till the 2/5, tell me one thing that will surprise us? Any predictions?

    Edwards (none / 0) (#65)
    by diplomatic on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:06:08 AM EST
    Yikes... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:08:19 AM EST
    Just saw on MYDD that Ann Coulter is picking Hillary? That is horrible.

    it's mostly because she hates McCain (none / 0) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:41 AM EST
    from now til the end of time... (none / 0) (#67)
    by cdo on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:07:48 AM EST
    i would be surprised if Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary and offered to campaign for her...omg she did?!!
    attention, hell just froze over.

    Is Coulter considering doing (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:11:47 AM EST
    a Huffington political party make over?

    At least Guiliani joked that he'll go whereever McCain sends him to campaign or stay home if that's what McCain thinks would work better.


    Warning: do not read myDd! (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:12:32 AM EST
    Imagine a special address to the Iraqi people... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:25:47 AM EST
    ...and the Afghan people, from the new President of the United States, a man named Barack Hussein Obama.  In terms of the "new start" paradigm, you'd be hard pressed to imagine a better one to show the people whose nations you occupy.  Even if only symbollically.  (Since he better get it done if given the chance to, but there's no guarantee he wouldn't squander it in his own way.)

    All other implications aside, even the momentous implications for our own nation, but for Iraq and Afghanistan, nations we have invaded and murdered, thrown into violent chaos and displacement, neglected and plundered in so many ways, for these peoples, it would be quite a powerful image and message.  

    We had the world on our side on 9/11, we lost them quickly with our own acts of mass violence, what a way to start getting them back.

    Just an observation.  By no means an endorsement.


    Sorry but! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:49:41 AM EST
    I hate to burst your bubble, but I was not born and raised in America. The world does not distinguish Americans by race, gender or ethnicity. Americans are Americans no matter group they identify with, the identity things are uniquely American. Actually, some of the writers from the third world are not happy about America trying to cover it's face behind a man with roots in Africa. So, it will not be some Hollywood transending event. Wether it's Hillary or Obama, they are America. And America always looks for it's interest. People in the third world are not taken by symbols. But if they do change policy and mission and people see some stuff then it will be fine. Remember Condi was black and she did not get a pass.

    true! this must accompany policy change (none / 0) (#83)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    or it is just business as usual. remember the pigs in animal farm.

    You miss the entire point (none / 0) (#93)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    I'm merely talking about perception affecting reality.  Perception IS reality in so many ways, no matter where you come from.

    If Obama were to get elected, you would have to be daft to think it would have no effect on the perception of the US.

    Now, thank you for also missing my parenthetical in which I CLEARLY state that perception only means something ultimately if you DO THE JOB and CHANGE THINGS.  That is an OBVIOUS that you seem to think is insight.

    OBVIOUSLY, if the next president is as bad as this one, is as complacent as others in the past, if she/he is simply not up to the task and offers more of the same in a different package, then of course nothing matters.

    But perception is a powerful thing, and in Obama's case it is only a plus on the world stage at this point.  If he were to get into office, the perception advantage would last as long as he does the job in a new and effective and humane manner.

    That said, with the electronic voting equipment we use here, I don't have any faith that my vote, or anyone else's, is securely cast and counted.  That's the bigger problem.


    People in th3rd world are not taken by symbols? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    You have to be kidding.  Kenyans are currently getting butchered by other Kenyans because the don't belong to the right tribe.  Much of the third world is tribal in nature.  Tribalism is symbolism taken to it's divisive and destructive end.  Symbols are merely representatives of something else.  The name of the tribe is the symbol, the word, for "I will hate and kill you if you are not of that same word".

    Please, if there is one things human beings share, rich and poor, first world and third world, it's that they can be led like sheep for the worst of reasons.  You seem to have a bit of the noble savage paradigm at work in your psyche.  

    Everyone's sh*t stinks.  Ours, I fully admit, stinks worse and we spread that stink around the globe.  Changing that will require a president with every tool at their disposal.  And an incomparable perception from the get-go is one of those tools, that few politicians enjoy.  Bill Clinton got it, largely because everyone knew he came from poor roots, and did pull himself up with hard work.  He wasn't called the first black president by some for no reason.  Perception becomes reality in many cases.  In many other, it does not.

    That said, who could blame any of the world for being cynical about our motives right now?  Do you think I sound like someone who thinks we should be thought of as some great and humble force for good?  I am only talking about the perception of an Obama election.

    You think they'd elect a guy named George Bush president in some middle eastern country, or African country?  You think France would elect a guy from Cameroon as their president?  How hard would it be for any white politician in South Africa to become the nation's leader with blacks in power now?  And the color of that leader's skin would play a major factor in people's thinking, don't you think?

    Perception is reality.  For how long it is reality, that is up to the perceived and how they do their jobs.


    You Might Be Surprized (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:01:55 AM EST
    How Would The Middle East Respond To President Barack Hussein Obama?

    Well this morning Erin Burnett tried to answer that on Morning Joe with an interview she had with Mohamed Ali Alabbar, one of the most powerful business men in the Middle East.

    His answer is what I have always suspected - they don't care. They have enough problems of their own that they don't need to sit around and worry about us. Crooks and Liars

    They don't care, my ass (none / 0) (#95)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    I don't buy his argument at all, sorry.  For heaven's sake, we prop up that governemnt as much as anyone, a government hated by much of its people.  The immediate perception of the US will be differnt, to varying degrees for every different person perceiving it, if Obama is elected.  Come on.  No no, no businessman in Egypt would care who was president of the biggest capitalist nation on earth, the nation propping up their military dictator.  That, on its face, doesn't wash.

    The guy is cynical, and rightly so, but he's not addressing the real issue, which is mere perception.  The world was happy as hell when we elected Clinton.  There was a huge pereception change.  

    Perception.  That is ALL I am talking about.  


    It must be great to understand all those (none / 0) (#98)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    3rd world villagers.  I don't know how to break it to you but most of them don't give a rat's a*s who's President of the US.  We'll be the Great Satan to them as long as we're in their business and having a 'bad' effect on their culture.

    Perception matters to us, not to a dirt poor rice farmer, as most Vietnam veterans would gladly tell you.


    "Proud to be Democrats".... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:38:07 AM EST
    you guys crack me up.  If you're proud to be a Democrat, you're proud of corruption, corporatism, occupation, and empire.

    The race and gender of the candidates doesn't erase my memory....I need more than the superficial before I ever pull the lever for a D again.

    i couldn't help last night but think about (none / 0) (#82)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    obama as a candidate and possible veep nominee with hillary. for the young angry people in the middle east to see a well educated person like obama with a background that includes a muslim african father, be part of a ticket for the two highest posts in the country and also be part of the nominating process as he has might just impact some of them. it says so much more about the united states than any republican like bush ever could.

    I think the "young angry people".... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:20:27 AM EST
    in the ME have their eyes fixed on the aircraft carriers off their shores, not so much on who holds the presidency.

    if you look above, you will notice that i also (none / 0) (#88)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST
    said policy changes have to take place. thanks

    imo..... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    Obama or Clinton have made no indication they will make those policy changes.

    We'll be occupying Iraq regardless of who wins out of the "big 4" remaining from both parties....which is why I won't be voting for any of them.


    ok, don't, but when things happen please (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:34:59 PM EST
    don't complain.

    What things? (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    The only candidates who would make positive things happen raise no money and get no support.

    See Kucinich, Dennis.

    I will be voting and reserving my right to complain....for Kubby, for Bloomberg, for Mickey Mouse....I just won't be voting for an illusion of change.

    Too bad you can't say the same eh?  A vote for Clinton or Obama is a vote for the status quo...deep down you must know this.