New Hampshire Debates

| | Comments (1)

Edwards says that every time you talk about change, the "forces of status quo" come out to attack you, and directly implied that because he was for change and Hillary was attacking him, why, she must be for the status quo!

And then he said -- this is just boggling -- that the issue of lobbyists is very personal to him. Lobbyists. I can see abortion, or war, or taxes, or many other issues being very personal to you. But ... lobbyists? There is nothing inherently good or bad about lobbyists. Everyone who petitions the government on behalf of others is a lobbyist. That is part of any representative system.

I said it four years ago, and I'll say it again: Edwards is either really stupid, or he really disrespects the intelligence of the public.

The Democratic debate last night most prominently featured the candidates arguing about which of them had the best self-narrative. "I am for change," "I am for experience," "I am for freedom of choice," "I am for helping everyone." They really didn't talk about the issues much, it was mostly an argument about who has the best way of approaching the issues, who has the best story, who has the best image.

And incredibly, Hillary closed her comments with a claim that the Democrats covered the issues better than the Republicans.

Not that the Republicans were great, but they mostly stuck to the issues and ideas, and not to the personalities or personal stories or narratives.


Oh well, I expect a lot less tonight, not because I think Chris Wallace isn't as good as Chuck Gibson (I think he is quite a bit better), but because the fix is already in. They have excluded Ron Paul, signifying that this debate is for the nation, not for New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire GOP thus withdrew its support of the debate. Very poor decision by Fox, and undermines the whole thing.

Heck, if I were a GOP candidate attending, I would consider not going at all, and absolutely would speak out against the decision.


strider Author Profile Page said:

Edwards, along with many on the campaign trail (especially on the left it seems), think they are smarter than everyone. Some of that is campaigning, most of it is arrogance.

Today Clinton said, "I have so many opportunities and donít want us to fall backward. I see whatís happening, people. Ö Some of us are ready some of us are not. When we look at the array of problems and potential for it to spin out of control, this is one of the most important elections."

She seems to think, along with Edwards, that she is the only one who can help. I understand campaigning, but I think she at some level genuinely believes she is the only one who can put this country back on the 'right track.' She is the only one who sees. She is the only one who feels. She is the only one with the answers. She is the only one who can save us. If this is the case, then God save us.

Leave a comment

<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pudge published on January 6, 2008 2:32 PM.

The Davos Question was the previous entry in this site.

Universal Health Care for Washington is the next entry in this site.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.