Putting On Their Game Faces

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/04/2007 7:38:32 AM

    Does Obama have the skill to overcome gridlock if elected. The facts are that Obama has recieved support from Republicans in Iowa. And we all know what the Republican party thinks of Hillary Clinton. This is actually and advantage for Obama he can say that Hillary and the Republicans have been unbale to work together in the past especially on health care(1994). Working with Republican in New York is quite different than working with Republicans on a national level. Obama can ease gridlcock. Hillary needs to constantly remind people that she never forgets and that she can improve people's lives.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/04/2007 7:32:02 AM

    You have just admitted that Obama greatest strength is inclusion. UNIFICATION. And you have you have used the words DIVISIVNESS and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence. You have essentially summed up why Obama is leading in Iowa. If John McCain is not the Republican candidate then they have no chance WHY? TIme for a change. Would you not agree? There is no way we can have a Republican President; that would cause gridlock between congress and the Executive branch. We need change;Let's be honest , the Conservatives had control of all three branches and did nothing. We really need change; we need someone who will never forget about you and I and the issues we face as a nation. Could you imagine Nick Romney and Pelosi Congress, that would be a nightmare.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/04/2007 5:47:54 AM

    I think Hillary made some good points. Most notably, when she mentioned that herself(Hillary Clinton), Bill Richardson, Dodd and Biden have been making decisions that affect this country for a long time. She's good at it. Another tremendous point she made is that you cannot learn to be President through a book, you need experience in the "trenches".It's like becoming a General without ever serving in the army. We need to give Richardson some credit, he is very intelligent and is a solutions oriented person, he is able to bring factions together and provide solutions. He has proven that in New Mexico and he was a star member in the Clinton administration. I also like his persona, he's cool, gentlemen like. He would make a great Vice President. Another facinating point that was mentioned was bloodlines. Bloodlines are very important in American Society. It detemines which fraternity you belong too. This is why the rise of Bill Clinton was so impressive, he did not come from the "traditional fraternity". Look at Kerry, Gore, Bush, Kennedy these are all people who come from powerful fraternities. Clinton was able to play his way in; Amazing I do not think that has ever been done. Unfrotunately, the heirarchy of fraternities is a secret world and therefore is subject to a lot of conspiracy theories some have merit some do not. We will never know because the information that way we have access too is limited. A big reason Bush became President was he was able to "milk" these fraternities for unprecendented amounts of money. If you do not come from a fraternity it is difficult to compete; you end up being like Guilliani and end up "selling" your soul for money. What choice do you have. No money, no penetration, no access to the Presidency.

  • Posted By: Willie Wingspan @ 12/02/2007 9:32:46 PM

    As a recovering republican posed to vote democratic--after 32 years of Bush/Clinton in the VP/Pres position continuing the dynasty would further devastate our approach to democracy. I am ex-military, pro 2nd amendment, balanced budget, pro-gay rights like my peers would vote Huckabee or anybody over Hillary. Democrats--Wake Up! If you think she is electable you are dumber than dumb.. .

    • Posted By: deep thinker @ 12/03/2007 6:46:28 AM

      Willie, it sounds like you and your buddies have had it with GWB and the mess he and his advisors landed us in. I'm with you, there. But, if you would back-slide to republican enough to vote Huckabee, it doesn't sound like you all have recovere enough to be ready to accept the democrats' platform and vote for the democratic ticket just yet, whether the candidate be Edwards, or Obama, or Hillary. So, your opposition to Hillary is irrelevant to the democratic strategy for victory in 2008.

      • Posted By: Willie Wingspan @ 12/03/2007 12:58:24 PM

        With the congress going to be safely democratic I would vote for a Republican over Hillary. 32 years of the same Bush/Clinton regime has to be stopped. It makes a mockery of democracy. Obama's election would do more to regain the former standing we had with the rest of world before this twit president of ours trashed it.

        • Posted By: deep thinker @ 12/04/2007 2:01:54 AM

          Willie, I feel very much like you do. I too am distressed and saddened by the fact that the Bush/Cheney administration has so arrogantly and irresponsibly and foolishly squandered the good will, trust and respect we used to enjoy around the world -- and thus gutted the diplomatic power and influence we once had. And, I think promptly regaining the standing we lost is of vital importance. In a world where military supremacy is increasingly becoming an overly burdensome, ineffective, costly giant, international trust and diplomatic prowess is key to our (an the world's) well-being and security. In fact, the ability to quickly and effectively rebuild our hugely damaged global-wide reputation may be the most significant measure I use to decide which candidate would make the best president. It is primarily by that measure that I lean in favor of Hillary Clinton. She is, as one contributor here said, ???sharp, savvy, organized, articulate, compassionate and tough.??? All prerequsites for effective leadership. Moreover, she has two other attributes that no one else can bring to the table. 1. She is a woman, and 2, she brings her husband, Bill Clinton. Being a woman gives her the advantage of being seen as "not one of the ordinary," and thereby she brings a certain amount of innate freshness to the mix. And, by having Bill -- who has achieved a remarkable reputation, internationally, of good will, wisdom, intelligence, understanding, communication skills, expertise and general know-how -- as a resource, she brings immeasurable advantages to the world stage.
          Yes, Hillary at home, at least, is a divisive figure, but that divisiveness is the result of being so well-known. Almost no one doesn???t know Hillary and has already formed strong opinions about her. Let???s face it, the country is divided, almost 50-50, between democratic voters and republican voters. If 45 percent won???t vote for her, that leaves 55 percent who will. or might Any election where the winner wins 55 to 45 is a landslide victory.
          As to your "dynasty" objections; your concern is not well-based in either fact or reason. First, a transfer of power to a wife is not dynastic in any event. Dynastic succession requires a common bloodline. A wife is not of the same blood as the husband. Second, even if a Hillary succession to power where dynastic in nature, neither a "Clinton dynasty" nor the "Bush dynasty," for that matter, in any way affects (or damages) the democratic form of government we have. Our leaders, whether relatives of previous leaders or not, are chosen by the electorate in free and fair elections ??? not by divine right or by appointment. (CAVEAT: the 2000 election, some would say, is an exception to that rule.)

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/03/2007 4:18:13 AM

    Thank God you are not a democratic strategist. YES it is important to know WHERE YOU STAND. AND the FACTS are THAT HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR and OBAMA was AGAINST IT. THIS is why Hillary CLinton is not leading in Iowa.

    • Posted By: deep thinker @ 12/03/2007 7:48:42 AM

      eddiewhere: My personal take on the game of who is leading in Iowa is that Iowans enjoy the special attention they are getting from every politico in the country too much to let us in early on who their final choice will be. So, "ff it's Tuesday, it must be . . . Edwards"! I predict that, since Edwards has been in third place for a bit too long now, his star destined to rise next in Iowa. Also, Obama and Hillary are getting a bit too vicious with each other. It's alright to sharpen your teeth for the eventual fight with the republicans, but you're not supposed to draw blood when you bite at each other. So, Iowans will look for ways to put the two in their place before they actually caucus on January 3.

      • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/03/2007 6:42:14 PM

        Excellent commentary. I agree with you that the candidates are starting to feel the heat and have stepped up their attacks. The competition is so intense that these candidates are fighting "punch" for "punch". Hillary Clintorn has proven time and time again that she can handle adversity( Bill Crisis) and still make successful decisions. Personally I think she is "battle tested" and has proven she can lead. However she is a very polarizing figure for reasons I think are frivilous and without merit. It is this polarization along with her vote on Iraq that has given the Obama campaign life. Obama's argument is that he can UNIFY different factions for the common good and that his experience as a Senator has proven that he is up too the task. Hillary's argument is that Barak is dreaming and he could never implement what he is proposing. It's getting down to crunch time and "Hillary and her people know what to do". It looks like a Hillary /Biden ticket. On the Republican side I think Nick Romney will probally end up winning that nomination. It is sad but true. When candidates gets too nasty it does not make them look good. People with big ego's always react the worst. It makes them look bad just ask Howard Dean. I think the longer Obama stays in the lead the faster the Clinton camp will due a "job" on him.

        • Posted By: deep thinker @ 12/04/2007 1:39:54 AM

          I agree with your analysis eddiewhere, except that I think the democratic ticket will be Hillary/Bill Richardson. Biden, I think, is angling for Secretary of State. If Obama distinguishes himself as Senator, perhaps he will have a chance next time.

  • Posted By: kansas kathy @ 12/03/2007 9:58:48 PM

    Word usage is so important in journalism. Why then continue to use the divisiveness issue when discussing Hillary? Is there not a divisiveness issue amongst the other candidates? I believe that history can teach a lesson about electing women. Sixty years ago a woman named Golda was elected to lead a threatened country with wisdom, strength and integrity. Sixty years later, we're still discussing whether a woman can lead the US? I believe that we not only have the candidate, but the woman, who can lead this country during its most difficult time in my lifetime, who can lead with courage, wisdom and strength....I will be proud to call her, President Hillary. And I do not care whether she wears pants suits, changes her hair style, claps her hands too often, or laughs a lot. I will vote for her because I believe in her basic qualities and feel she is the strongest candidate.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/03/2007 7:02:19 PM

    You have just admitted that Obama greatest strength is inclusion. UNIFICATION. And you have you have used the words DIVISIVNESS and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence. You have essentially summed up why Obama is leading in Iowa. If John McCain is not the Republican candidate then they have no chance WHY? TIme for a change. Would you not agree? There is no way we can have a Republican President; that would cause gridlock between congress and the Executive branch. We need change;Let's be honest , the Conservatives had control of all three branches and did nothing. We really need change; we need someone who will never forget about you and I and the issues we face as a nation. Could you imagine Nick Romney and Pelosi Congress, that would be a nightmare.

  • Posted By: c3227 @ 12/03/2007 5:04:54 PM

    Is this a democrat paid advertisement. None of these people could lead a pack of wolves to a fresh kill.

  • Posted By: jade7243 @ 12/01/2007 9:12:12 PM

    The problem with HIllary's "beat the Republicans" strategy is that it is her agenda and not ours. We didn't have the vast right wing conspiracy until the Clintons brought them to Washington. We aren't obsessed with the Republicans nor see them as part of the "axis of evil" evildoers. That's Clinton.

    Barack Obama (and other candidates, too) see building linkages to the Republicans as important in order to make government work. It's clear that with a new kind of "coalition of the willing" it will be gridlocked business as usual in D. C.

    In politics, winning isn't everything, governing is.

    • Posted By: deep thinker @ 12/02/2007 12:40:34 AM

      But, overning comes oly after winning. You can't govern if you don't win first.

      • Posted By: deep thinker @ 12/02/2007 12:46:39 AM

        Let me try this again. I meant to say: But, governing comes only after winning. You can't govern if you don't first win.

        • Posted By: Terry Ott @ 12/02/2007 8:05:03 PM

          Being clear about how you will govern is more important to me than what positions you will take on the issues, which is something Congress is primarily responsible for anyway. Thus, to me, to get my vote you must describe your philosophy, approach, style, plan etc. etc., about how the executive branch will function and the principles it will follow. Much more critical than positions on issues, which is Congress' bailiwick. I doubt that many others are as dead set on this as I am, but I hope there are enough so that "principles of governance" make a big difference to voters

          • Posted By: CivilServantBradley @ 12/03/2007 4:57:33 PM

            Well said. I think the ability to govern and effectively manage relationships is far more important than the rhetoric of what issues candidates will supposedly champion. The traits of leadership will mean far more in the long haul of the presidency. After all, who knows what the primary issues will be in 3 years time?

  • Posted By: SmileySam @ 12/02/2007 9:33:32 PM

    I continue to be unhappy about the way the Press has ignored Edwards in this campaign. Rarely is his name even mentions since his wife's bout with Cancer first came out. Both Hillary and Obama have co-oped many of Edwards plans and ideas while claiming them as their own yet the Press also ignores this fact. If John was given the credit he is due for driving the issues and pushing the other 2 to make more real and serious strongstands

    • Posted By: Saltydog_0 @ 12/03/2007 3:51:55 PM

      Smiley: I'm an Obama supporter, but couldn't agree with you more. The press' treatment of Edward's candidacy as an "also-ran" is deplorable. I think the real primaries are held behind closed doors in the boardrooms of media conglomerates. We the people get to choose from the list of candidates put forward by the press. We DO NOT live in a true Democracy.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/03/2007 3:12:38 PM

    You need not wonder. If you go back and reseach the time of the vote , you will clearly realize that Obama expressed his opposition to the war from the beginning just like Bill claims. I mentioned Obama was against the war , I never said he voted on it one way or the other. The fact is Hillary VOTED FOR THE WAR and OBAMA was against it at that time; he never voted but he was against it. Those are the facts. There are no facts supporting your claim that OBAMA would have voted for it. Quite the contrary!

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/03/2007 2:44:53 PM

    You need not wonder. If you go back and reseach the time of the vote , you will clearly realize that Obama expressed his opposition to the war from the beginning just like Bill claims. I mentioned Obama was against the war , I never said he voted on it one way or the other. The fact is Hillary VOTED FOR THE WAR and OBAMA was against it at that time; he never voted but he was against it. Those are the facts. There are no facts supporting your claim that OBAMA would have voted for it. Quite the contrary!

  • Posted By: ublair @ 12/03/2007 10:49:44 AM

    I wonder what would have happened if Obama was in the Senate at the time of the war resolution vote. I do believe he would have voted for the war. Stop saying he did not vote on the war. He was not there to vote so we do not know how he would have voted. Your argument is flawed.

    • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/03/2007 2:34:11 PM

      You need not wonder. If you go back and reseach that time, you would have clearly seen that Obama was clearly against the war from the beginning just like Bill claims. I mentioned Obama was against the war I never said he voted on way or the other. The fact is Hillary VOTED FOR THE WAR and OBAMA was against at the time; he never voted but he was against it.

  • Posted By: papalux @ 12/02/2007 6:22:23 PM

    WHY DO YOU NOT MENTION THAT OBAMA IS A MUSLIM AND DOES HE PRATICE WHAT THE KORAN SAY'S. KILL ALL NONBELIVER"S,WIPE OUT ISREAL. WHAT DOES HE PRACTICE.

    • Posted By: angelus1967 @ 12/03/2007 12:52:37 PM

      Ummmmm, paplux, Barack Obama is not a Muslim. That would be why it was not mentioned!

  • Posted By: cingi @ 12/02/2007 5:17:48 PM

    The ONLY Presidential candidate talking about restoring our Constitution and our rights is Congressman Ron Paul. If ANY of the others are elected or are allowed to stay in the offices of power they now hold you can kiss the rest of your freedoms and rights goodbye.

    We are at a very critical juncture in our history as a nation and a free people...to have the wrong person as President or in any position where they can make law is extremely dangerous...we are now on the verge of a Police State.

    Most of the candidates running for President have continually voted against the will of American citizens and have pledged to continue to do so, in favor of amnesty and benefits for ILLEGAL aliens and this is just one area with many consequences where We have been betrayed. Our elected representatives refuse to demand that our existing immigration laws be enforced and our ports and borders secured and our current President continues to try to install fear in us with the constant threat of another 9/11 type of attack as he and his administration continue to attack our Constitution and Freedoms!

    We MUST be VERY careful and make sure We get the right person running for any office in our land...everything is at stake...check their voting records and VOTE!

    • Posted By: angelus1967 @ 12/03/2007 12:51:34 PM

      Gee cingi, for some reason I fail to see Ron Paul as the Messiah who will lead this nation in the "right" direction! He may lead it in his direction but that is not the right one. He has said some impressive things no doubt but this country does not run the way he wants it to and that's a good thing. I would love to know why on Earth we should use a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution in the day and age. That document was written 230 years ago to provide the direction for a new country but the founding fathers could not possibly have dreamed of the world we have today. Thus the document must be read in the times we live in.
      And this is only one of the several problems I have with Ron Paul.....

  • Posted By: Tommypie @ 12/02/2007 9:40:46 PM

    Dont' concern yourselves with Obama. Hillary or John Edwards. Huckaby will be the next President of the United States.

    • Posted By: Azim @ 12/03/2007 10:04:53 AM

      not again, with that Compassionate Conservatism, I hink we have enough of those. We need a new direction in this country and no matter who is electable or not electable in the Democratic side, anyone can beat a Republican in the coming election.

      If Hillary Clinton or Obama is the nominee of the Democratic party , I think they are both electable in the coming election. But most of all, Hillary Clinton is the most tested candidate of all there is to and as the conventional wisdom dictates that she will be the Democratic nominee in 2008 and will be elected the first Madam President of the United States of America. Stay tuned!

  • Posted By: greenbug @ 12/02/2007 9:14:15 AM

    As a female democrat, the Obama camp is right in pointing out how many of us will stay home if Clinton is the nominee. She is too corporate and too phoney and too clinton. As an Obama supporter I have thought of what the campaign has said about being able to stand up to Hillary. The clintons play the dirtiest politics and Obama doesn't seem to be doing too bad in standing up to her and getting the better of her.

    • Posted By: deep thinker @ 12/03/2007 5:52:08 AM

      greenbug, I bet you live in a State that is safely BLUE . There, because you count on others not to stay home on election day, you may indeed be able to afford to indulge your idealism and its finer distinctions. The question is though: will (would) you and other democrats who feel like you really decline to cast your vote for Hillary (the seasoned realist democrat), even if doing so meant the republican candidate would win? I bet not. In fact, realisticly, I'm quite sure that Obama himself would ask for your vote on behave of Hillary, if she becomes the chosen democratic candidate.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/03/2007 4:11:03 AM

    :To the author: You have just admitted that Obama greatest strength is inclusion. UNIFICATION. And you have you have used the words DIVISIVNESS and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence. You have essentially summed up why Obama is leading in Iowa. If John McCain is not the Republican candidate then they have no chance WHY? TIme for a change. Would you not agree?

  • Posted By: SmileySam @ 12/02/2007 9:38:04 PM

    While the Press continues to ignore Edwards, he is the one driving the democratic issues, pushing both HRC and Obama to take more people oriented stands. If Edwards was given his fair share of time in the media he would be leading this race. If Hillary were the patriot she claims to be , she would step aside for the good of the nation and let us heal for a couple terms. She is still young enough to do some great stuff as a Senator and still run for Pres. down the line.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse