Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches
Marek Reavis wrote: The country does seem to be way too big for efficient and effective governance. I hadn't heard about the Nine Nations idea, but it would be interesting to consider such a split and have the Nine be part of a federated North American super-structure that would allow the basic continental concerns shared by all (defense, interstate/ internation commerce) to be addressed with some of the infrastructure that's already in place now. It would be like an extremely pared down federal government but with no power to interfere with internal governance. And the idea of a state, the West Coast comprised of California, Oregon and Washington is very attractive to me. Here's the Wikipeidia entry on it. I read Garreau's book years ago. He came across the concept talking with newspaper journalists who looked at the US that way. The great thing is that we'd get rid of Los Angeles which is like another planet when compared to the Bay Area. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America There's very interesting essay about Obama written by Geoffrey Stone, former dean of the University of Chicago law school, who set him up as a Visiting Fellow there (he later went on to be a Senior Lecturer there and taught Constitutional Law) after Obama graduated from Harvard and began doing public interest law in Chicago. Stone was disappointed that Obama wouldn't stay as an influential law professor and considered his entry into politics to be a waste of his potential. The article (from the Huffington Post) is at http://tinyurl.com/292vcb Interesting article. BTW I watched parts of the ABC comedy show last night. Observations: regardless of politics McCain, Paul and Thompson all being experienced legislators made Romney, Huckabee and the joker in the deck Giuliani look like rank amateurs. Can't say that for the Democrats since they've all had that experience. I even liked Thompson nailing Romney to the wall on how he was going to pass certain legislation. In the first 40 minutes when they were discussing foreign issues Paul sounded no different than any progressive talk show host I've been listing to the last few years. That's part of his appeal to many followers. I was a crime however that Kucinich was excluded from the debate. The bickering of the Republicans will pretty much guarantee they won't win the office whereas the Democrats bickering just makes things interesting. But me being a cynic believes that the king makers are going to give Americans an illusion of democracy again and get their shill into office. That may well be Obama which will find that when once steps foot into the Oval Office he'll be given the great come to Jesus talk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: **snip** BTW I watched parts of the ABC comedy show last night. Observations: regardless of politics McCain, Paul and Thompson all being experienced legislators made Romney, Huckabee and the joker in the deck Giuliani look like rank amateurs. Can't say that for the Democrats since they've all had that experience. I even liked Thompson nailing Romney to the wall on how he was going to pass certain legislation. In the first 40 minutes when they were discussing foreign issues Paul sounded no different than any progressive talk show host I've been listing to the last few years. That's part of his appeal to many followers. I was a crime however that Kucinich was excluded from the debate. The bickering of the Republicans will pretty much guarantee they won't win the office whereas the Democrats bickering just makes things interesting. But me being a cynic believes that the king makers are going to give Americans an illusion of democracy again and get their shill into office. That may well be Obama which will find that when once steps foot into the Oval Office he'll be given the great come to Jesus talk. **end** Thanks for the info on 9 Nations. I watched the whole house party last night, too, but didn't find either debate all that interesting or even useful. You know, one of the commentators also remarked about how good Fred Thompson did, too, but I just get that from him. To me he comes across as someone who is mentally coasting and can't get very engaged intellectually at all. Romney, too, comes across to me as a poseur -- someone who has some real deft social skills in lucky combination with a more-than-average intelligence (but not exceptional), toothpaste commercial good looks, and a lot of money. He's like a better looking, smoother talking GW. And I get a different take than you on Huckabee, too. He continues to impress me with his natural intelligence and personableness. And I thought his answers were better nutshell summaries of his positions and how they differed from his opponents' views on the same issues was superb. John McCain has a lot of likeability, as well, and he comes across as very smart and capable. Ron Paul is an important voice to be heard right now, and to be included in that debate was valuable but I don't trust that man's ability to make decisions in the best interest of the electorate. Giuliani comes across as genuine as a 3-dollar bill. Plus he's icky-creepy. As far as the Democrats are concerned, I was hoping for Obama to knock another out of the park but he played it real safe and even came across as a little lightweight last night; like he was trying to be all presidential and above it all, but came across as not so much. I would have preferred if he had mixed it up more, got a bit more energetic. But all the commentators said that all the candidates were tired, and except for Edwards who took a rest and a run before the debate, each had multiple events earlier in the day. Everyone seemed to be running on fumes. Clinton really impressed me, though. She was the most prepared, seemed relatively relaxed, had some great lines including a double comeback to the question regarding how she felt about all the coverage from Iowa talking how much more likeable Obama was than she. At first she paused, then looked right at the questioner and said in a mock demure, It hurts my feelings. Big laugh from the crowd. Then as the laughter died down she said just a little bit more submissively, But I'll try to carry on. Then a big smile and another good laugh from the audience. It came across very natural and human (and funny) and really threw into high relief how everyone treats her differently because of her gender. Edwards still doesn't impress me and when he started talking about being the middle class' champion by taking on the coporate interests and how it was personal to him, and that you needed a president who takes it personally, and he takes it personally, and this is personal with him, etc., etc. The argument doesn't do it for me and he still comes across as a lightweight to me. He's an excellent trial lawyer, I can see that in him, but I don't feel that he's presidential timber. Obama, Clinton, or Richardson would be effective presidents IMO, but I still prefer Barack to Hilary, and Hillary to Richardson. I agree that Kucinich should have been at the debate, regardless of the (not unreasonable) criteria used to determine who got to participate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: **snip** But aren't you sick of Iowa and NH sort of deciding who's the candidate so early in the game since they are less populous states and don't really represent the voting demographic of the nation? Sure we've moved up the California primary but with the machine eproms having been stolen who knows how that will turn out (paper ballots please). Maybe we need a national primary maybe on a weekend where everyone can get a chance to vote. Or maybe it is time to break the US up into the 9 nations that native Americans always used to refer to this country and forget about some big power base. As it is Californians are getting pissed enough to support cessation and maybe taking Washington and Oregon with us. Ecotopia anyone? Last spring the local Peace Group held its march and rally the same day that Obama visited Oakland. There were almost no younger folks at the march and rally as most were going to see Obama. I see the local group anyway as a nostalgia 60's group for us old fogy boomers. They do nothing to attract kids whose future is more at stake. Maybe they are covertly run by the CIA. Obama appeals to the youth vote but is too corporate for my taste and we really need to reign the corporations in as they are the source of much of the world's problems nowadays. But unfortunately I talk to many kids who think it would be alright if Microsoft or General Electric ran everything (shudder). **end** Hey, Bhairitu. I'm not sure that I feel my vote is compromised by the early primaries been held in non-representative and smaller states, as opposed to the Super Tuesday primaries on Febr. 5. One thing said last night on Bill Moyer's show was that in the small states like Iowa and New Hampshire that you don't get in the later primary states is the extreme exposure to the candidates in the flesh, rather than edited sound bites from their stump speeches. That, and the opportunity for the voters to really engage the candidates with real questions and actual concerns rather than just listen to the stump speech which summarizes what the candidates' campaigns have decided are the electorate's concerns. Plus, both Iowa and New Hampshire are known to be highly educated overall and New Hampshire has a huge percentage (44%) of registered Independents who can vote either for Republican or Democratic candidates. I'm not unhappy with that type of vetting process to focus the field before I get a chance to cast my vote in February. [As a side note, the Rasmussen Report has Obama leading Clinton in New Hampshire by 10 points (37/27) as of today.] The country does seem to be way too big for efficient and effective governance. I hadn't heard about the Nine Nations idea, but it would be interesting to consider such a split and have the Nine be part of a federated North American super-structure that would allow the basic continental concerns shared by all (defense, interstate/ internation commerce) to be addressed with some of the infrastructure that's already in place now. It would be like an extremely pared down federal government but with no power to interfere with internal governance. And the idea of a state, the West Coast comprised of California, Oregon and Washington is very attractive to me. There's very interesting essay about Obama written by Geoffrey Stone, former dean of the University of Chicago law school, who set him up as a Visiting Fellow there (he later went on to be a Senior Lecturer there and taught Constitutional Law) after Obama graduated from Harvard and began doing public interest law in Chicago. Stone was disappointed that Obama wouldn't stay as an influential law professor and considered his entry into politics to be a waste of his potential. The article (from the Huffington Post) is at http://tinyurl.com/292vcb Marek
[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119950318582369653.html Iowa Win Doesn't Guarantee Big Prize By GREG HITT January 5, 2008; Page A5 Memo to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee: Don't read too much into those Iowa victories. A caucus-night win on the chilly plains of Iowa can provide much- needed momentum to a presidential campaign, and new leverage to raise money ahead of the New Hampshire primary, the next stop on the long road to the White House. But the American political landscape has been littered during the past 30 years with Iowa victors from both parties who faded in the later laps of the race for the White House. It is the first real test of the nomination season, but failing the Iowa test doesn't mean one necessarily fails the class, said Donna Hoffman, a political-science professor at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls. Despite all the hoopla, Iowa does not pick the parties' nominees. ... If you look at the historical context, the victors of Iowa, many of them, aren't standing as you get down the road in the campaign process, said Greg Mueller, a Republican strategist who was a senior adviser to Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996, and Steve Forbes in 2000. You might be able to win Iowa, but that doesn't mean you're going to run the table. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: **snip** But aren't you sick of Iowa and NH sort of deciding who's the candidate so early in the game since they are less populous states and don't really represent the voting demographic of the nation? Sure we've moved up the California primary but with the machine eproms having been stolen who knows how that will turn out (paper ballots please). Maybe we need a national primary maybe on a weekend where everyone can get a chance to vote. Or maybe it is time to break the US up into the 9 nations that native Americans always used to refer to this country and forget about some big power base. As it is Californians are getting pissed enough to support cessation and maybe taking Washington and Oregon with us. Ecotopia anyone? Last spring the local Peace Group held its march and rally the same day that Obama visited Oakland. There were almost no younger folks at the march and rally as most were going to see Obama. I see the local group anyway as a nostalgia 60's group for us old fogy boomers. They do nothing to attract kids whose future is more at stake. Maybe they are covertly run by the CIA. Obama appeals to the youth vote but is too corporate for my taste and we really need to reign the corporations in as they are the source of much of the world's problems nowadays. But unfortunately I talk to many kids who think it would be alright if Microsoft or General Electric ran everything (shudder). **end** Hey, Bhairitu. I'm not sure that I feel my vote is compromised by the early primaries been held in non-representative and smaller states, as opposed to the Super Tuesday primaries on Febr. 5. One thing said last night on Bill Moyer's show was that in the small states like Iowa and New Hampshire that you don't get in the later primary states is the extreme exposure to the candidates in the flesh, rather than edited sound bites from their stump speeches. That, and the opportunity for the voters to really engage the candidates with real questions and actual concerns rather than just listen to the stump speech which summarizes what the candidates' campaigns have decided are the electorate's concerns. Plus, both Iowa and New Hampshire are known to be highly educated overall and New Hampshire has a huge percentage (44%) of registered Independents who can vote either for Republican or Democratic candidates. I'm not unhappy with that type of vetting process to focus the field before I get a chance to cast my vote in February. [As a side note, the Rasmussen Report has Obama leading Clinton in New Hampshire by 10 points (37/27) as of today.] The country does seem to be way too big for efficient and effective governance. I hadn't heard about the Nine Nations idea, but it would be interesting to consider such a split and have the Nine be part of a federated North American super-structure that would allow the basic continental concerns shared by all (defense, interstate/ internation commerce) to be addressed with some of the infrastructure that's already in place now. It would be like an extremely pared down federal government but with no power to interfere with internal governance. And the idea of a state, the West Coast comprised of California, Oregon and Washington is very attractive to me. There's very interesting essay about Obama written by Geoffrey Stone, former dean of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: **snip** Edwards did something that I consider rather dumb. He pulled a 36 hour sleepless marathon leading up to caucus night, holding little meetings in the middle of the night and bigger ones throughout the day. By tonight he looked and sounded pretty fried. Obama stayed on a pretty good sleep schedule, played basketball with aids this morning, and was out to dinner with his family when the news came that he was projected to win. This thing is a marathon, not a sprint. Burn yourself out at any point and you run the risk of giving a lackluster speech that may haunt you, getting the flu, etc. **end** Edwards didn't have much choice except to do that type of marathon because it was so important that he pull out a win in Iowa. And I thought that his post-caucus speech (not a concession speech at all) was fine. Obama had the easier position from which to give a speech, obviously, but it still had a sense of being a defining moment in the campaign and possibly American history. He was perfectly situated to give a great speech and he clearly did so. I was impressed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can't help but comment on tonight's speeches. Edwards was good, Clinton was better (IMO) and very gracious, and Huckabee was really excellent and presented himself as a very good, compassionate and intelligent man, sincerely so, I really liked him. I thought Clinton's totally lacked energy and enthusiasm and didn't come close to Edward's and Obama's in capturing the democratic mood at this point 7 yrs into Bush/Cheney. Huckabee's talk could be summed up by his slogan banner shown behind him I Like Mike - good for a high school student council race but not leader of the world's only superpower. As far as his compassion, he ran ads in Iowa critizing Romney for not executing more people while governor. This of course is his attempt to deflect criticism of his pardoning a serial rapist who went out and killed/raped again - he released the guy based on insane clinton conspiracy rumors (clinton having put the guy away). But Obama totally hit it out of the park. He gave a deeply inspiring presentation and his oratorical skills, commenting as an admiring practitioner of the craft, absolutely eclipsed all others, even someone as practised as Edwards is. I think it's entirely possible that he fundamentally changed the campaign; he certainly did so for me. He seems to be a fine character. Gorgeous family. Money in the bank. Looking forward to New Hampshire and South Carolina.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Huckabee's talk could be summed up by his slogan banner shown behind him I Like Mike - good for a high school student council race but not leader of the world's only superpower. As far as his compassion, he ran ads in Iowa critizing Romney for not executing more people while governor. Which is interesting, because Massachusetts doesn't have a death penalty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Candidate's Caucus Speeches
Boo_Lives, Clinton was in the hardest position, in some ways, since she was the front runner who got seriously trounced. To project confidence and enthusiasm when you just fell on your face is a hard trick to pull off and I think that under those circumstances she did very well, re-casting the votes as a victory for democrats (which it was, of course, as the total votes cast indicate). As far as Huckabee is concerned I have no illusions as to how his agendas would actually play out should he somehow manage to get elected; I was commenting on how he projected in his speech which I found to be very personable, very polished, and with genuine warmth and intelligence. I found myself responding to him as a person and I think that type of personality and character will be very appealing to lots of voters. In contrast, I found Romney to be perfectly blow-dried and packaged in his speech, almost Stepford-ish. I think Huckabee might have more substantial legs than he's being given credit for. McCain is too tired, I believe, to last past February 5 without some substantial and unequivocal wins that don't seem likely to happen. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Can't help but comment on tonight's speeches. Edwards was good, Clinton was better (IMO) and very gracious, and Huckabee was really excellent and presented himself as a very good, compassionate and intelligent man, sincerely so, I really liked him. I thought Clinton's totally lacked energy and enthusiasm and didn't come close to Edward's and Obama's in capturing the democratic mood at this point 7 yrs into Bush/Cheney. Huckabee's talk could be summed up by his slogan banner shown behind him I Like Mike - good for a high school student council race but not leader of the world's only superpower. As far as his compassion, he ran ads in Iowa critizing Romney for not executing more people while governor. This of course is his attempt to deflect criticism of his pardoning a serial rapist who went out and killed/raped again - he released the guy based on insane clinton conspiracy rumors (clinton having put the guy away). But Obama totally hit it out of the park. He gave a deeply inspiring presentation and his oratorical skills, commenting as an admiring practitioner of the craft, absolutely eclipsed all others, even someone as practised as Edwards is. I think it's entirely possible that he fundamentally changed the campaign; he certainly did so for me. He seems to be a fine character. Gorgeous family. Money in the bank. Looking forward to New Hampshire and South Carolina.
