Response to the debate
Feb. 26th, 2008 10:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
unusualmusic_lj_archiveTim Russert was a complete ass to Senator Clinton in the beginning, cutting her off and trying to misrepresent what she said. He was also a complete ass to Senator Obama on the subject of Louis Farakhan. The debate was mostly very civil. I've seen numerous accusations of Senator Clinton going negative throughout the entire debate, but most of it honestly came across to me as normal politicking. She's trying to sell herself as the next Pres. of the US. Of course she's going to question her opponent. Seriously, some Obama supporters need to calm the hell down.
That said, Clinton annoyed me with the whole trying to help Tim Russert's effort to tie Louis Farrakhan to Obama. That was fucked up and ill-advised and Obama made her look stupid.
Senator Obama truly annoyed me by backing away from being considered "liberal" however. The Democrats have really got to find their spine and STOP MAKING REPUBLICANS FRAME THE TERMS OF THE NATIONAL DISCOURSE, DAMMIT!!!! To be a liberal is NOT a bad thing and fucking Democrats should NOT be shying away from it. Commenter Becky at 3:24 pm in response to this thread hit the nail on the head...
The problem with Obama running from the word liberal is by treating it as a bad word, he's implicitly admitting that being liberal is a bad thing to be. And if that's the case, why should anybody vote for him over McCain? If liberal=bad, why vote for the more liberal candidate over the less liberal one? I've long thought what Democrats need to do is show people why being liberal is a good thing.
What if Obama had made this speech: "Yes, I'm liberal. I'm liberal because I want to reduce money in politics. I'm liberal because I want our soldiers to be treated properly when they come home. I'm liberal because I want to make sure everybody has health care, and because our current health care system that spends more on healthcare than any other advanced country while providing less people with coverage doesn't make any sense."
Becky | 02.26.08 - 3:24 pm | #
Democrats cannot keep responding to the Republicans by trying to be more like them. What they have to do is distinguish themselves from said Republicans, and then convince the country to vote for them based on that difference, just as the Republicans did starting with Reagan. Look. We not only need more Democrats, but we need genuinely liberal, progressive people who care about elevating the country to another level. No more centrists. No more Republicans in democrats clothing (Joe Lieberman, we're looking at you. No more spineless people. (That means you, Democratic Congress). We need another 50 Barbara Jordans, dammit! Principled people with the courage of their convictions who will stand up and say it loud and clear and own that we. are. liberals. Damn multiple sclerosis!
Apart from that, the rest of the debate went well. I honestly would suggest that if you need to learn about the candidates, watch them on the debates then go to their websites and read about their positions and come to your own conclusion. Ignore the pundits, cause what they say the candidate said and did too often has no bearing on the truth.
That said, Clinton annoyed me with the whole trying to help Tim Russert's effort to tie Louis Farrakhan to Obama. That was fucked up and ill-advised and Obama made her look stupid.
Senator Obama truly annoyed me by backing away from being considered "liberal" however. The Democrats have really got to find their spine and STOP MAKING REPUBLICANS FRAME THE TERMS OF THE NATIONAL DISCOURSE, DAMMIT!!!! To be a liberal is NOT a bad thing and fucking Democrats should NOT be shying away from it. Commenter Becky at 3:24 pm in response to this thread hit the nail on the head...
The problem with Obama running from the word liberal is by treating it as a bad word, he's implicitly admitting that being liberal is a bad thing to be. And if that's the case, why should anybody vote for him over McCain? If liberal=bad, why vote for the more liberal candidate over the less liberal one? I've long thought what Democrats need to do is show people why being liberal is a good thing.
What if Obama had made this speech: "Yes, I'm liberal. I'm liberal because I want to reduce money in politics. I'm liberal because I want our soldiers to be treated properly when they come home. I'm liberal because I want to make sure everybody has health care, and because our current health care system that spends more on healthcare than any other advanced country while providing less people with coverage doesn't make any sense."
Becky | 02.26.08 - 3:24 pm | #
Democrats cannot keep responding to the Republicans by trying to be more like them. What they have to do is distinguish themselves from said Republicans, and then convince the country to vote for them based on that difference, just as the Republicans did starting with Reagan. Look. We not only need more Democrats, but we need genuinely liberal, progressive people who care about elevating the country to another level. No more centrists. No more Republicans in democrats clothing (Joe Lieberman, we're looking at you. No more spineless people. (That means you, Democratic Congress). We need another 50 Barbara Jordans, dammit! Principled people with the courage of their convictions who will stand up and say it loud and clear and own that we. are. liberals. Damn multiple sclerosis!
Apart from that, the rest of the debate went well. I honestly would suggest that if you need to learn about the candidates, watch them on the debates then go to their websites and read about their positions and come to your own conclusion. Ignore the pundits, cause what they say the candidate said and did too often has no bearing on the truth.
