Unlike most of the civilized world, I have no cable television. The truth is I can't really afford it. But I pretend I'm too intellectual for such frivolities."Hey Bernie, did you watch American Idol last night?"
"No, I read."
"Ohhh."
Last night, that lack of cable made it impossible for me to watch the "debate" between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But I still was able to listen to the show on KYW Newsradio and follow Scott Kraus' live blogging over at Pennsylvania Avenue. .
Biggest Surprise? I expected Clinton to be on the offensive, but she was remarkably restrained. There was none of that shrillness I've noticed in prior speeches. Obama was actually the snarkier of the two, took a few unnecessary shots and seemed unprepared for some questions. Instead of sounding hopeful, he sounded petulant. "I can take a punch. I’ve taken several from Senator Clinton.” They don't call her Rocky for nothing. After the debate, she put on some sweats and started running Philly's streets, and she was packing, too.
Not those damn cookies again! In 1992, Hillary claimed she wasn't the sort of person content to stay at home and bake cookies, and Obama just had to bring it up. "People attacked her for being elitist. I remember watching that on TV and saying, well, that's not who she is. That's not what she believes. That's not what she meant." I'm so pleased that Obama decided against making those cookies an issue. Kinda' makes me hopeful.
But she does make one mean cookie. Here's her recipe for chocolate chip. It's all in the oatmeal.
Moderators Blasted for Making Debate Interesting. Both DailyKos and Pennsylvania Avenue were exasperated by the moderators. "We want issues." The Boston Globe huffs it was a "tawdry affair." There were a hell of a lot of questions about candidate gaffes, but guess what? Those questions matter to voters. David Brooks writes, "The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault."
New York Times Blames Pennsylvania! We're mostly trailer park trash, I guess. "Not that it isn’t a lovely place. (Full of people who despite their economic woes are in excellent moods all the time.) But the candidates’ pollsters always warn candidates that the entire state — and possibly the presidency — hinges on a couple of exurban neighborhoods full of alienated outdoorsmen." Hey, that's what I said last week, and everyone said I was nuts. Well, now it's in The New York Times, baby.
Who was the biggest liar? Fact Checker buries Obama. During the debate, he denied supporting a handgun ban as an Illinois legislator, blaming some staffer for incorrectly filling out some questionnaire. But Obama's handwriting is all over it. Ah ha! But hold on before giving that liar award to Obama. Hillary actually admitted she's told whoppers on a "few occasions," so doesn't that make her the biggest liar? But if she admits she's a liar, isn't she really being honest? This is deep.
You could cut that tension with a knife, but don't tell Scissorhands Severson. Despite claims to the contrary, Clinton and Obama clearly detest each other. Clinton finally conceded that Obama could win the general election, but both refused to pledge to accept the other as a running mate.
Debate winners? Philly hotels - average rate is $239 - and John McCain. Obama sounded flat to me.
My 22-year old daughter makes $24K and is facing the loss of almost $200 per month in take home pay if either of these politicians becomes president and keeps his or her promise to let the "Bush" (never mind they were approved by both parties) tax cuts expire.
ReplyDeleteIt's enough to make her cling to God and guns - or wonder how Bill and Hillary made all those millions and have the balls to take $200 per month out of her budget while she's trying to save for a down payment on a house.
They've driven up each other's negatives significantly and will continue to do so after PA. But neither has been hit with the issue that will hand the White House to R's for a third Bush term. It's always the economy and pocketbook issues, stupid candidates.
It's interesting how many people, including yourself Bernie, walk away from the debate with differing viewpoints. George Stephanopoulos, this morning on ABC News, contradicts your statements by saying Hillary Clinton was snarkier of the two and predicts this might tip more voters to Obama.
ReplyDeleteFor the first time, regarding the election, I agreed with Governor Rendell. The first hour was dedicated to gaffes. Where the heck were the questions on the issues? I was disappointed in ABC for the amount of time on gaffes and not enough time on the issues.
Pennsylvanians are brighter than you give them credit for. As for my take on the debate. Clinton did good, Obama flubbed, but not enough to change my vote. I still like his stance on issues and his ability to know details about taxation.
WHO is behind the Barack Obama for President
ReplyDelete"moo-vement"?
........ GE ....and a gaggle of other corporate elitists.
Are a lot of working class Americans Bitter?
Well, they SHOULD be: Another GE candidate for President (SOLD to the public by the Corporate-Controlled "Mainstream MEDIA)...Ronald Reagan...began the MASSIVE Robbery of the American people that has continued to this day.
About every day the TV Talking heads say: "The Rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer"
...& You'd Think...after nearly 30 years the NEWS People would FINALLY ASK: (& Answer) WHY?
The answer is simple: Reagan cut the top tax rate down from the 70%'s to the low 30%'s.
(If you made $100 million & your tax rate was 70% you would pay $70 million to Uncle Sam & keep $30 million...earning interest, or dividends THE NEXT YEAR on that $30 million. If, instead, you paid $30 million in taxes and KEPT $70 million-You'd make a lot MORE money the next year on that $70 million)
Simple: tax the rich a lot less AND they damn sure WILL get a whole lot richer a whole lot faster. There was 2 PARTS to Reaganomics tho. The second part was: "The Two-Tier Wage Structure"
i.e. Pay the Top level "executives" a Whole LOT MORE; Pay everybody else a Whole LOT LESS. (Newspapers & TV in the early 80's had articles & coverage of the "Two-Tier Wage Structure" that CORPORATE America trotted out IN CONCERT with Reagan's election & tax cuts.)
IF its CORPORATE POLICY to PAY Everybody else a WHOLE LOT LESS-everybody else is going to get-a whole lot poorer...huh?
a. It was deliberate. b. Its been going on for nearly 30 years.
Next Question: Is Obama likely to fix it?
Answer: Hell No. Because THE SAME PEOPLE are running him for President - The SAME WAY they got Reagan/ Bush1 / Bush2 elected: MEDIA PROPAGANDA.
GE owns MSNBC & NBC. AOL Time Warner owns CNN. Westinghouse owns CBS. (GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet). They have interlocking directorships. THEY ARE the Corporate-Controllers of the Corporate-Controlled Media.
MSNBC/NBC have become the CHIEF propaganda mouthpieces of the Obama Pushers (BOPN-Barack Obama Propaganda Networks)-just like FOX has been the the Bush Propaganda Network all these years.
There are no more Journalists, no more NEWS People. They have all become court jesters & clowns doing their bit to please their corporate masters..Top Level..PAID A WHOLE LOT MORE---Media whores.
Here's a glimpse of ONE of the $Billions of TAXPAYER-RIPOFF-Reasons GE wants to "elect" Obama President: GE & Westinghouse are in the business of building nuclear power plants. GE & Westinghouse are planning to reap BILLIONS in RISK-FREE Profits from building those nukes, AND, from the $High Dollar electricity rates those nukes will produce. ( They're planning to build one of those nuclear power plants in Pennsylvania.)
The Cheney Energy Bill passed in 2005 - made it possible for the nuclear industry to begin planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants (licensing hearings are already scheduled for the first few of them).
No new nuke plants were built for 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky. The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER PAYBACK of any of the nuke loans that default (The Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50% or greater)
Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Clinton says her Energy plan does not include nuclear & if they want to be considered they will have to FIRST Make it Cheaper and find a safe way to dispose of the nuke waste.
McCain, this week on the Campaign trail said...we just have to face it we need to start building new, "CLEAN", nuclear power plants.
i.e. The Corporate Elitists are running OBAMA AND McCain for President.
("Getting off coal to go to nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack".)
The winner, whoever it was, won nothing. The losers, the voters, had to sit through a barrage of irrelevant questions. I agree with the comments made by anonymous 7:46 AM. It's the economy and pocketbook issues. I live in a small town and I'm bitter. I don't care about Rev. Wright and I don't care about Hillary charging up San Juan Hill under sniper fire. I want to know who's going to get us out of this damn war and get the economy back on track. The Dems are on their way to screwing up another election.
ReplyDeleteBernie, how can you be a credible commentator on the american experience without access to cable television . . . and i even include the premium options like HBO. cable, not networks, is the cutting edge of our culture. we'll all be glad to send in a couple of dollars each to finance it for your.
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteSeveral good reads while these "debates" are turning into soaps:
"Mornings on Horseback" by David McCullough, "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" (Pulitzer Prize), and "Theodore Rex", both by Edmund Morris.
A LIFETIME of inspiration,hope, and courage versus today's 30 second soundbites.
Anon 7:46, Are you sure about that? I though they both said their plans won't affect people with lower incomes.
ReplyDeleteBlue Coyote, Bernie File & Marc,
ReplyDeleteYou know, I actually was interested in all those questions asked during the first hour, probably because I'm a miserable bastard myself.
Elme, Is it me, or do you dislike Obama?
ReplyDeleteConsigliere, I'll ask if there is a spoecial blogger's rate. But if I start watching Amerrican Idol and those early morning exercise shows, I'll probably stop blogging.
ReplyDeleteHillary was definitely snarkier never turning down an opportunity to sling mud. THe commentators did cover the gaffes for too long and Hillary loved every minute of it.
ReplyDeleteWhat was said in the debate was true. Obama never personally went after Clinton for the ridiculous Bosnia statements but HC sure did attack BO on Wright.
And before we pat Pennsylvanians on the back too much, did anyone catch the nauseating "question" by a fellow resident inquiring about the lack of flag lapel pin on Obama? People like that is what makes the rest of us sound like elitists.
I wish Obama could answer that question truthfully and just call the lady a horse's ass.
Just curious, but does anyone know the viewership of the debate last night? The opinions about how the candidates were treated and how they responded to questions varies drastically all over the MSM and blogs I've seen this morning. I hope a lot of registered dems tuned in to see for themselves and make an informed decision at the polls next week.
ReplyDeleteHayshaker, So you're w/ Blue Coyote on that snarkiness question? You may very well be right. It could be that bc I now think Hillary is the better candidate of the two, I would just authomatically think that sunshine follows her. Or it could be I'm just so used to seeing her attack that i just don't notice it that much. I did notice it in Obama.
ReplyDeleteBernie, why engage in the "who won the debate" stuff? The horse-race coverage of politics is truly ridiculous. No coverage on issues. Only on who won what issue. I know the temptation is to offer commentary about who won and didn't.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I didn't watch the debate. I was at church. Even if I wasn't at church, I've made my decision on whom to support and doubt that a debate on comentary and political spin would have done anything to sway me. Call me disgruntled about the current structure of debates and politics as usual that the media continues to hoist on us.
Gsbrace, aka Geoff,
ReplyDeleteSo you were one of those bastards clinging to religion at some church, swilling on the opium of the masses?
You must know by now that I embrace the ridiculous. God, I go to Northampton County council meetings.
"So you were one of those bastards clinging to religion at some church, swilling on the opium of the masses?"
ReplyDeleteYup that's me! Don't worry Bernie. The Holy water only burns a little.
We clearly have our own outlets.
I never understood the issue with using the word "clinging" when referring to religion. When someone believes in something supernatural without any factual evidence whatsoever is it not sticking with something and resisting separation? One would rarely "cling" to anything else so outlandish. Is faith itself not "sticking with and resisting separation?"
ReplyDeleteHayshaker, You'll have to ask Obama. He used the word first.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping he used it in the way I would. That religion is a quaint tradition not rooted in reality. That its a personal spirituality and something that should not be foisted upon anyone else by way of laws or government action.
ReplyDeleteI really do hope BO wins. He -could- be that lone politician out there who at least most of the time is speaking truth and not pandering or slinging mud (like Hillary Clinton).
Elme,
ReplyDeleteI like your attempt at an economics lesson.
However, as was pointed out by Gibson last night, when capital gains rates are cut, revenue to the treasury goes up. When the rates are raised, revenues go down.
The same applies to general tax rates. Cut them (Like Bush, Reagan, Kennedy and Coolidge) and revenue goes up. Raise them and revenue goes down.
Respectfully to Joe Hilliard,
ReplyDeleteRegarding capital gains cuts - increased revenue into the government's piggy bank only occurs in good years. That's why Barack Obama had a quizzical look to Gibson, when Gibson made that remark. What happens in bad years? Gibson made an unfair observation. Don't count on Charlie Gibson for an economics lesson.
Secondly, as was pointed out by Obama, Hillary pandered to the teachers, police and firefighters by saying she won't raise their taxes on them, but Obama pointed out correctly that the cuttoff is $97,000. Hillary knew that, but yet pandered to the ignorance of those that don't know anything about taxes and tried to get votes from these powerful unions.
Hillary couldn't fool Obama. It's in the details. During that specific part of the debate, in my mind Obama knew what he was talking about. He flubbed alot of the other though.
Blue Coyote,
ReplyDeleteI agree w/ your first point re capital gains. Gibson just had that wrong. As far as the second poiny goes, i don't know too many teachers, cops or firefighters in that salary range. HRC was being honest.
That's exactly my point. Thanks for getting that. Not too many people did. Teachers, police and firefighters don't make over $97,000. But she intonated that she won't tax them because as if they did make over that. That was BS. And Obama caught that. As did you.
ReplyDeleteTo Hayshaker 9:15 comment -
ReplyDeleteWhen the question of the flag lapel pin was asked, THAT'S when I hurled. ABC couldn't come up with something better to ask the candidates? I think Bernie's grandson could have asked a more intelligent question than Charlie G. or George S.!
Blue-
ReplyDeleteMore revenue is produced in the good times and the bad times. In fact, tax cuts help produce the good times as well - by improving the economy.
"Facts are stubborn things." - John Adams
"More revenue is produced in the good times and the bad times."
ReplyDeleteJoe - I don't know what macro-economics class you took in college, but capital gains revenues fluctuate in good and bad economies. That's why in 2003, Bush was able to bring the rate down from 20% to 15%. But the capital gains revenue was more because of the market, therefore more tax revenue came in, not because of the tax cut. When you have a bad market, like we are in now or going to be, you may have to adjust the rate of taxation. That's why they asked the question during the debate. Understand?