The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors

Note

  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Blogorian!

Blogged


« Senior Military Strategists Warn NATO: Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike Must Remain an Option | Main | Bill Clinton, Pit Bull: A Clinton Campaign Strategy »

January 22, 2008

Comments

James Stripes

Obama is correct, but is a fool for saying telling the truth the way he did. It is unfortunate that Reagan did so much to define the direction of politics over the past few decades, but it is true. Alas, it is also true that Democrats have offered relatively few cogent ideas around which the political battle lines can be drawn. Rather, they have been the reactionaries--responding to Republican ideas.

Hillary Clinton is correct that Republican ideas are bad ideas, but it remains to be seen whether she or Obama can put forth any positive proposals that will be embraced by a majority of the people. Right now opposition to bad ideas is all that drives the Democrats towards probable victory.

We know that the ideas Republicans put forth sell well, and sell us short. They destroy our civil liberties, wreck our economy, and isolate us as a bully in foreign affairs. But, until Democrats offer something the "vast unwashed" can comprehend, they will struggle even against the likes of Mike Huckabee and Arnold Schwarzenegger. As things are going now, the Democrats should win in November, but the margin will likely prove unconvincing.

billkav

What Obama meant notwithstanding, the intensity of the flap over this sort of 'affinity' for Reagan, the charges and countercharges about which candidate sat on which corporate board, or whose law firm worked for the partner of a slumlord client, obscured a lack of interest on the part of both major candidates in discussing real issues during the CNN debate.

Both Clinton and Obama appeared petty and superficial by fighting insanely over opposition research topics. Most of CNN's test audience thought Edwards actually won the debate. He actually discussed policy positions in detail, without getting personal. Unfortunately, 99.9% of Democrats will never know that, because the horserace phenomenon has long since kicked in. It's now all about 'he said-she said' (and what Bubba said) in the mainstream media.

It's unfortunate that we're left with only the scraps the two frontrunners' handlers will leave us to understand the real differences between them.

D. Cupples

Bill, I was glad that they sparred over those non-issues at the debate, because I think the effect will be a sense that the non-issues have been played out. Maybe now, we can move on to real issues, like Iraq, the economy, healthcare, FISA....

James, I hear ya!

The comments to this entry are closed.