3 posts tagged “caucus”

Sean reports...

Well as the Democratic Party continues to shoot itself in the foot over stupid decisions and rules, I found this story that makes a lot of sense to me but in the end may mean nothing.  To me the Democrats have a point on being a private entity but when they are utilizing resources from the state doesn't taht factor into having to abide by legal statute? Enjoy!

Sean says...

As I posted before here, Stefan and I are trying to figure out who to support on the Democratic side and so we have been watching the debates when we can. Hence, we watched the Democratic debate in Nevada this week. I could post the whole debate here to be a little more inclusive, but I will be "bad" and do some editing on my own. I thought this was a great debate in terms of telling what the candidates are about. I am reposting about it to link the parts of the debate I felt moved me toward Clinton and Edwards and further away from Obama.  I will say I will support the Democratic nominee regardless, unless an viable independent alternative is made available.  Stefan, I believe, will as well.

This is the part of the debate that I think really swayed my thinking. Unfortunately, you can't forward to the specific parts easily so start the first video at the 3 minute mark and let run. Start the second video from beginning. The points bridge across the end of Part 3 and the beignning of Part 4 of the segments. (Further segments are also available on YouTube.) These parts deal with how these three would run the country.  Perspective and method are big failings of our current commander-in-chief and I think we need to ask these questions about how he or she will approach the position and judge for ourselves, like in an interview, who is the best candidate to hire.

Sean says...

Stefan and I watched the Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate the other night and was struck by the real substance that was discussed here. In both our minds Hillary Clinton was the most commanding. Edwards did a great job of contrasting although NBC's/MSNBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams were unfair with their distribution of questions, mainly leaving him out through the first portion mainly (this was the portion where the two hosts were taking on Clinton and Obama with the race discussion).  What questioning struck me the most was the discussion on what the candidates strengths and weaknesses are and the discussion of whether the president should be a chief operating officer of the government.

Obama said he was a great visionary and coordinator of disparate sides while being weak in his own personal organizational skills, requiring assistance in managing paper and details around his desk. Hillary said she was a passionate champion for many causes and knew how to organize efforts to move things along, but her weakness was her vigilence was sometimes seen as too impatience and inconsiderate of others speed in acting on their commitments in moving forward. Edwards said he was a born fighter. He was someone who fought all his life to get where he is from menial beginnings, but he thought his weakness is that he is too empathetic of those he meets one-on-one and it makes him more angry when he tries and pursues change. I thought this was very honest and very true of each. Each is a leader even though you may have a different opinion. However, Obama has some substance issues, Hillary is seen as too strident, and Edwards is scene as too much of a pitbull lawyer.

On the question of the Chief Operating Officer, Obama began the answering which was precipitated by his own comments to a newspaper board in Reno. Obama felt that the president should be a visionary leader who sets the bar to reach and selects the right people to manage it. The president isn't a micromanager. Clinton disagreed and said teh president is a visionary leader, a goal setter, and the manager of the bureaucracy - because vision goes no where unless you manage the bureaucracy to change and hold it accountable. Edwards followed with Hillary's line of answering.

This in my mind was a HUGE tell of who I am voting for. Hillary began to look presidential to me here and continued with that strength the rest of the debate. She really impressed me more than she ever has. Edwards also has pulled me along. I like how Edwards is a fighter and Hillary is an advocate. I just don't see from looking at Obama's past how he is either. Incredible oration does not a president make - just ask William Jennings Bryan. Plus in survey after survey I seem to be trending Edwards in blind questions about candidate positions. However, Hillary got me with her experience debate and the thought of "Nixon opening China" belief.  So what I am saying is that I think Obama does not have a chance at my vote in the primary period at this point. Maryland votes Feb 12, so I will pick my final choice at that time regardless of who has momentum.

Stefan will I am sure post his own thoughts in a separate blog... I am just he mouthiest of the two of us on politics. (smirk followed by dimple twist to the cheek).

Side note: I saw this comment by David Gergen on CNN.com after this debate. I thought this was a great sign that he and others will seek the death of a hated military practice to the gay community.  

A post-script to last night's Democratic debate: Clinton, Edwards and Obama each told Tim Russert they would enforce laws requiring universities to allow military recruiters on campus. As a long-time advocate of restoring ROTC to major universities, I just want to add that a huge stumbling block now is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, which is seen at many schools as highly discriminatory against gays and lesbians. If that is amended -- as growing numbers in the military think should happen -- we will have a much better chance of persuading schools to honor service in the armed forces in the ways that they should.