Weekend Roundup
While GOP candidates polished up their base at the Conservative Political Action Conference with Mitt Romney, Rudy and Newt all doing very well and on message, Mitt won the overall straw poll afterwards, Oh Yeah, Roll Mitt Roll from a Crimson Tider! Lots of coverage at Townhallblog, NRO's The Corner and AmSpecblog with lots of fun links and pictures. John McCain well, he was busy acting the fool for David Letterman. Mitt made up much lost ground with his aplomb and deep knowledge of the issues and like Newt with lots of good solution based ideas. I would love to see Mitt, Rudy and Newt sit down in front of a fire and discuss issues, with You Tube the format is now inexpensive beyond belief and with the blog links could easily reach far more people than a one time live event. Newt advanced the format idea and it sounds great to me
Meanwhile Barack Obama and Hillary took to the podiums of famous churches in Selma, Alabama to commemorate Black Sunday and a dark bloody stain on ths nations history. I watched both speeches and it is no wonder Sen. Obama is overtaking shrill Hillary so quickly his oratory was smooth well delivered and had a compelling central theme that fit well in a church of that fame. He related the plight of blacks to that of Moses and the flight from Egypt, Dr. King and others being the Moses generation and how Moses saw the Promised Land but would never get there and how building Israel was left to Joshua's generation, our generation. I had not seen Barack speak since the DNC convention and he was good then and has gotten very, very good since, an excellent speech echoing many of the points Bill Cosby and other conservative black leaders have made for so long on education and actually getting one to a very rousing reception. Hillary was well, shrill wooden and very fake. I actually enjoyed Sen. Obama's speech though I would disagree with much if not all of his policy positions, it was thematic backed in Scripture and very uplifting and positive in message. Hillary talked about voting conspiracies and tied the struggle of women to that of blacks and her privileged Wellsleyian self that has lived in taxpayer funded convoys and State Houses most of her adult life. She is in serious trouble in her bid for the Whitehouse just looking at the vast difference in style, he is all style and she completely lacks it, slick well tailored suit vs, the ubiquitous pantsuit. How she goes after him will be interesting and we all know she will.
12 comments:
I find it fascinating, all this conservative brow-furling at the thought of Hillary Clinton "going after" Barack Obama. Lest we get ourselves all worked up over little, we must remember that they are involved in a competitive political campaign for the highest elective office in the country. As the old saying goes, politics ain't beanbag, and as another saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Both Clinton and Obama are tough nuts, and neither one will give or receive much quarter from the other. While there is ample social science data to suggest an extremely divisive primary campaign is bad for the eventual nominee (Jimmy Carter vs Ted Kennedy in 1980; Walter Mondale vs Gary Hart in 1984; George Bush vd Pat Buchanan in 1992 are all examples cited in the literature), this does not mean that primary campaigns should be avoided. It just means that we need to keep in mind that the campaign can become nasty not because of the distance between the candidates but because of their closeness. The arguments are often over details.
Also, what in the world is wrong with a candidate doing as much as possible to win an election? Nasty they may be, but there is nothing unseemly about cutthroat politics practiced by a woman, unless one is ideologically committed to a version of femininity that sees such activity as somehow "unwomanly".
One answer, Margeret Thatcher, and Hillary is not Margeret Thatcher in any sense of the word. You must be a Hillary supporter, Barack just took most of the black vote once his speech gets out. It was very moving even to a conservative. I disagree with his left wing policy positions but consider him a far more formidable candidate than Hillary. After all Hillary is trying to haul a freight trains worth of baggage and a man named Bill.
I find it entertaining not "brow furling", she will go on the attack.
I tend to think that Hillary will flame out early. I think she simply doesn't sound credible and authentic when she speaks, and voters will continue to find that unsettling. I think both Obama and Edwards are much better speakers and have more 'soul' in their message and they will both overtake her in the polls long before the primaries begin.
I don't have much interest in the positions of any of the three at this point. None of them represent a serious change to the status quo and I doubt they will bring the party faithful to the ballot box in large numbers. If the Dems win the Presidency in 2008, it will be a vote against Bush and the Republican agenda, not a vote for anything.
DL you are probably correct, except for one thing, President Bush is not in the race to reject. If the GOP gets back to its conservative footings we'll take all three houses back and the SCOTUS since as you said the DNC stands for nothing only that they are not republicans.
The fact that Bill Clinton wasn't in the race in 2000 did not stop the Repubs from doing their best to tar Gore with that brush. The biggest Bush failure is Iraq, and we seem to have two kinds of candidates (regardless of side): those who supported the war in spite of the fact that had they been doing their jobs they would not have, and those who claim they were against it all along, but have never had to go on the record.
I think at this point, the American people have had a real good hard look at what the Republican agenda is all about and they can see the results all around them. I can't see the Repubs winning unless the Dems shoot themselves in the foot by, say, nominating Hillary.
We have a choice now between a party that stands for nothing, and a party that stands for all the wrong things. Not much of a choice.
Al Gore was VEEP and Dick Cheney is not running either, it will be about conservative ideas and solutions vs. the lack of ideas minus any connection to the current administration. The economy has been solid and growing, there is too much positive for the Dems to push their negative cloudy agenda, the recent drop at Wall Street was simply profit taking and some bad reporting and misquoting along with a small market correction after a rapid rse to record levels. Most of the Dems are fascinated by a failing European system of socialism and that does not play well with the electorate here in America, We like our guns and our freedom and will fight anybody that tries to take either away. I am tired of the loonbat left attacking everything Christian, everything based in a solid family bloc. I ain't into socialism, I am into creating a job for my neighbor that does not have one,not feeding them on my tax dollar.
Just so you know, I had to defend socialism/communism in a high school debate in a high level private school, needless to say I learned much reading Marx and Lenin. My blood will be shed before I embrace government rule outside a federalist republic based in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independance.
I hope you're right about the election being about conservative ideas and solutions - that should assure a Democratic victory. Check my most recent post for a sanity check on the economy which has little to do with Wall Street.
I for one, wish the Dems had even a smattering of admiration for socialism, but alas they do not. They do, however, clearly value freedom and our rights as citizens far more than the Republicans. They also are a great deal more committed to the US Constitution than the current administration.
The question before the nation is not who will win? The question is what kind of nation do we want to be? Are we a belligerent empire ignoring the needs of our citizens to fight unnecessary wars on behalf of the economically powerful, or are we a nation devoted to freedom, justice, and democracy?
So, DL, you like socialism , that is clear, how does that comport with personal liberty and responsibilty? Loonbat talking points are not substantive arguments. We did not declare war on them, they declared war on the US years ago and if you do not recognize that then you are simply blind to reality. Tucking our tail and running away will not help freedom. Do you wish to live under Sha'ria or American law? We don't behead women over love,or homosexuals and Christians we don't require women to wear a tent. You tell me Sha'ria or American law. Conspiracy moonbattery will not be posted.
I saw spineless RINOs get removed by dems toting a conservative Zell Miller line last cycle and their constituents will expect them to stand up or lose. America does not like losers and will not tolerate a loss to jihadi extremists.
Oh, I fully believe in American exceptionalism and its expansion of the values of freedom, we should push those values harder. Socialism has failed in all its forms while cpitalism is exploding economies across the globe. It seems to me an individuals ability to make money is far better than the government giving it to them. Work hard and do better, sit on your ass and fail seems pretty fair to me.
Barack and Hillary court black conservatives as a major plank, so how is a conservative message bad? Please display your intelligence for us on these matters, we are interested to say the least. Please detail how proven bad socialism would be good for America, display your wisdom. They were speaking in Evangelical houses of worship, blend the Atheistic side of the left with that transgression to that portion of the left, and both support Israel? I thought that was a major no-no on the left?
Post a Comment