Subscribe by RSSVideo: Dueling campaign managers on Meet the Press
Today on Meet the Press, Barack Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, and Hillary Clinton’s new chief strategist following the departure of Mark Penn, Geoff Garin, went at it today over the state of the campaign and last debate.
Here’s a variety of clips from show today:
More on this to come later…
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
Yes i watched this. Poor Geoff Garin didn’t sound to good and got stuck a lot but i believe that this is due to him being only 2 weeks old. He still needs more time to do research on some issues which far predate his new position. So in my opinion this was slightly an unfair match up.
Again, the Superdelegates are NOT elected officials. Over 300 of the 800 are unelected. I cannot stand how some Democrats try to legitimate their process by glossing over or lying about this point.
Why would Geoff draw similarities between what will happen at the DNC and the 2000 election? I think a lot of democrats are still bitter (oops) over that. Especially when Clinton doesn’t have the popular vote, majority of states, and delegates. To point out that her role is would be like GB at the 2000 election comes at a heavy price.
“Clinton doesn’t have the popular vote, majority of states, and delegates.”
Stupid Obama supporters use their stupid argurments to defend their beloved messiah. Why don’t they just build an alter to him and Rev. Wright. Oh, I forgot, he wasn’t in the church during any of those 100 sermons where he trashed our country and Jews.
No matter, radical liberals have never won a general election and it won’t change now.
But Obama will not close the primary season with the popular vote, not when all 50 states are added together.
And the “He won more states argument” has always been a dumb one anyway. Who cares how many states he won? You could fit 10 states he won into one of the one’s Hillary won.
No matter what obama does, his dumb ass supporters will claim “it’s change we can believe in”.
Caleb,
I see no need for the name calling or the snide remarks. It hardly makes the case that your opinion is one to be recognized and respected.
Caleb, I have to concur with Michelle. Arguments are always better served on a warm, not hot, plate.
I like Geoff Garin
Apparently, journalism shows are now being produced by Simon Cowell.
Not only did Tim managed to repeat three times his long list of “why Hillary cannot win” he somehow forgot to mention that neither can Obama.
He allowed Axelrod to utter three whoppers - without asking for a citation or a justification or even an explanation.
Maybe those thrills Matthews feels when he sees Obama have started wending their way up Tim’s leg, too.
Well, the domcratic election divides state votes proportionally between candidates. So Hillary hasn’t REALLY won any states. That’s what John McCain did, as the republicans candidates win all or no delegates from one state, but democrats divide the number of delegates in proportion to the vote.
So no state has been really won by Hillary or Obama any time. They just get a higher or lower number of delegates. And in this case the math is supporting Obama.
That, Caleb, is the only argument you need to hear. Obama is winning not because he has won more or less states that Clinton, but because he has won more Votes. More people has voted for him. And in democracy, that’s the stronger reason possible. That’s the reason G.W. Bush had a second term and never won a first one (without false vote recount, of course).
And your supposition that Obama will never win against the republicans is, so far, without any ground. In recent years the polls have been treating G.W. Bush and his choice of staying at war very very bad. Most people will hate whatever is similar to Bush and his pro-war policy.
And that role is being played by McCain right now. Between he and Obama, he is the candidate who is more similar to Bush. And that will hurt him in the general election. It will hurt him bad.
And if you don’t believe in that argument, believe in this one: Obama has more money than McCain……… BY FAR.
So, whatever reason Clinton is pulling to create the image that McCain will crush Obama is unlikely. Obama has a greater advantage, and has a greater chance of becoming president than John McCain. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.
Now see, Michael, you knew I was going to read this and get riled up, didn’t you? =)
That’s not a fact, it merely assumes facts not in evidence. And is insulting to American voters to boot. You imply that Obama will beat McCain because 1) he has more money, thus what? He can buy our votes? and 2) because McCain is a republican we’ll just naturally assume he must be like George Bush and 3) of course, because we disagree with Bush’s handling on some of the issues that every single thing without exception about George Bush and his 2 terms in office was all bad.
Let’s say the match up will be Obama and McCain. Who’s record will more impress voters? The Jr. Senator from Illinois who is still very naive and wet behind the ears or the seasoned senator who has for years fought against some of Bush’s policies, stated time and again that the war was mismanaged for 4 years, and believes wasteful government spending is rampant? Obama who dreams of hope or McCain who woke up out of the dream years ago to work to make the changes that Obama only waxes poetic about?
Michael, McCain and the RNP will make Obama look like a 16 year old with a crush on the White House china room. And I’m not the only one that thinks that - check out your polls. Crush him? Probably not. Beat him soundly? You bet. People of our generation remember the last time we really threw the facts out of the window and voted our emotions - we elected Jimmy Carter. I don’t think we’re dumb enough to do that again.
When you’re in a sinking ship on the ocean you don’t look to the green little deckhand baiting your hook to save you, you look to the salty old captain that knows which end of the boat is starboard.
The comment that I made above wasn’t arguing for either side. I’m simply trying to point out that the idea that the democrats are going to go the convention and walk away without any drama is ridiculous and that connecting the DNC to the 2000 election doesn’t help your argument, no matter what aspects you were trying to draw from it (in this case it was the “cool temper” of the people at that time). Maybe it was a little bit of a stretch to point out that both Hillary and Bush are in similar situations and that democrats would then see Hillary playing the role of Bush in this scenario.
The DNC probably isn’t going to play out the way the two head campaign managers say, and they probably know that. With all that’s happened so far on the campaign trail, it’s hard to see either campaign just walking away. I expect to see some drama from both campaigns. I think the real question then is how bad the candidate who is still standing after all of this will be damaged by these events and whether the party will be able to pull itself together. Watching these two awkwardly pat each other on the back doesn’t really ensure me that everything will be just fine.
First of all, I’m not “Michael”, one of the organizers of the blog. I’m Michel, and this is my first post on this blog. So… I’m quite sure I wasn’t trying to “rile you up”. But I feel flattered, nonetheless. I hope that will help me get excused for writing in english in such and akward way, since english is not my native language.
To asume that money is not factor ain american elections is like questioning if there is ice on the poles. That’s a display of naiveness I don’t believe you have. Money doesn’t buy votes, but votes for a campaign. Money is useful to pay for tv ads and any kind of propaganda, printed or broadcasted. Money is good for lobbying, and not exactly bribing. If a candidate has more money in his pocket, he is more likely the best choice to support in any kind of election, because he will have more resources to express his ideas and projects to the public. And that, my friend, is what is good for, and everybody knows that.
McCain won’tbe EXACTLY like George Bush. Come on, even Obama has admitted that either one of the three remaining candidates would be better than Bush. (and that was against the strategy of the Dems, which shows that Obama, to some extent, speaks what he believes, despite if it’s good for him or not.) But McCain has A LOT of common points with Bush. The more important ones: 1. Yes, he is a Republican. 2. He is a strong supporter of permanence in Iraq until victory is achieved (yeah, right), which is one of the most strong characteristics of Bush. 3. His economic plan basically consists oof cutting high-income bussinesmen taxes, in order to reactivate the economy… something impelemente by Bush already and with results yet to be seen somewhere.
By the way, he received a strong support by Bush himself after McCain ensured his nomination, and McCain happily received that endorsement and political support.
And he didn’t even fully aknowledge a recession in the US. If he is supposed to be more experienced than Obama, I wonder why he makes mistakes such as this and allowing so many of his fellow republican to attack him for having collaborations with weak liberals such as John Kerry in his past. When a republican is on the target of hard commentarists such as Anne Coulter, and can’t defend himself in a strong way… or in any other way, then his experience is worth nothing, if he has any. The “we ar in a recession… or maybe not” gaffe shows a mind that’s not very brilliant. And Bush is famous for making that kind of gafes that make him look like an uninformed idiot.
So, I’m not sure you can tell the differences between them.
Ant to get to your third point…. I want you to tell me 3… three SIGNIFICANT things, that Bush has chosen well during his 2 terms. He hasn’t handled well the economy, he has earned many foes in the foreing arena, he is one of the most hated figures nowadays with the public opinion, he is believed to have been elected in the first time due to a fraudulent vote recount, and probably the only thing he has achieved during his presidency is assuring oil for Halliburton (oh, yes, and for America too) by sacrificing thousands of lives. Oh, yes, and he didn’t handle well the investigations of the 911 attacks.
To receive without complain an endorsement by G.W. Bush and his currrent staff, is one of the worst performances that any candidate could have in this election. And McCain did just that. And the Democrats, if they are smart, WILL KEEP USING that against McCain. And that will sink him.
And, lastly, I want to quote you Babs:
“Who’s record will more impress voters?… Obama who dreams of hope or McCain who woke up out of the dream years ago to work to make the changes that Obama only waxes poetic about?”
Well, see… Obama. Even if that description of yours is right, the most likely winner there is Obama.
Here’s the funny thing. I think Obama will win because of his political views, which I admire a lot. But I was not talking about who SHOULD win the general election, but who will most likely win it… and between a naive inexperienced man with no much contact with Washington, and the well-seasoned McCain, but whose stances are more moderate and close to Bush (no matter if they are no exactly the same, the average american isn’t that well informed)…. I think people are more eager to vote for Obama.
Obama has more money, more media support, more mass-appeal and more distance with president Bush than McCain. He even has the younger public appeal… and the younger voters are more in quantity than the ones of your generation, who voted for Carter, as you say. He has a better chance of winning than McCain… by far. Even if I were a republican thinking that McCain is the better candidate, I would have to aknowledge that he has very thin chances of winning. So far, his only hope is to play the underdog in the general election. That’s all he has.
Read Moby Dick. The stubborn hot tempered, well-seasoned old captain dies, still sticking to his old ways of thinking. The inexperienced but sensible young man who didn’t follow the old man anymore and started to think outside the box… that’s the one who made it to the end and saved the day.
Have a good day.
First of all, my apologies to you, Michael. I need to get my eyes checked apparently, or maybe I’ll just blame it again on it being Monday. Anyway, sorry, Michael. =)
And to you, Michel, I understand your english just fine, no problem.
To penalize McCain for accepting an endorsement from Bush is illogical. The Black Panther Organization endorsed Obama, that doesn’t mean he’s like them. And I don’t believe anyone in American politics has given Bush’s endorsement any more than an expected passing glance. In fact, I think it probably meant no more than Nancy Reagan’s endorsement in the grand scheme of things. What did you think Bush would do, endorse a democrat?
Secondly, you’re using quotes saying “we ar in a recession….maybe not” as if that’s a quote from McCain. It wasn’t, it was the title of post here by You Decide 2008. No gaffe here, read the post.
Yes, money buys ads, and sometimes votes, even Superdelegate votes. That’s the corruption of the system. However, to say that a candidate will always win an election if he has enough money behind him is just wrong. You’re not giving the American voters any credit for having intelligence here.
If English is not your first language, may I ask where you receive your political news in your language?
Haha, touché. Well tried… but I receive my political news in english. It’s just I’m much better reading than a writer.
And about the gaffe, you think that was a misquote from “YouDecide”? It wasn’t. You think I’m impliyin those were his exact words? I didn’t. If you don’t like this page, check The Politico also. http://www.politico.com/politics08 You’ll find it there. It’s a more pro-Clinton website, so maybe the Obama creed won’t disturb you so much there.
McCain did make the gaffe… and Obama did critize him on that, when John McCain said Obama was out of touch. “Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain — it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem” - Barack Obama
Yes, Clinton is telling Obama what are the most probable and harsh attacks that could come from the republicans. Someone should do McCain that same favor. When it comes to speeches, Obama is not bland.
I don’t say money is all you need in an election. Money doesn’t buy a presidency. I’m asaying that, among other disadvantages McCain suffers in comparison to Obama, he also has to deal with the money shortage problem. And that’s a big problem. Because mones IS, whithout a shade of doubt, a Very Strong factor in these elections.
And money says something else about McCain. He hasn’t enough support from the republicans. Not even to endorse him with campaign donations to sustain his race. The Dems are divided… but so are the Republicans.
I didn’t say Bush would not endorse the republican candidate. But McCain didn’t hesitate to take his endorsement. He took very happily and openly. That and a lunch invitation to the White House. Because he, in many ocasions, have adscribed to points of view very similar to Bush’s.
I was going to referrence Moby Dick to thwart the “salty old captain” analogy that Babs used, but I see that Michel was on top of things.
Age and experience don’t always make you the better person for the job. It’s that kind of thinking that will cause you to fall behind on the times and changes that you need to acknowledge to be progressive make improvements.
This election should show us that we need to stop making decisions based on prejudices such as age, race and gender, and start looking past these to more substance.
Whobody, I used the “salty old captain” analogy because my husband and I are both “salty old captains”. *L* I agree with you that age and experience doesn’t always make you the better person for a job, but in this case I think it does. Experience will be a major issue if the general election is between Obama and McCain. Even the staunchest of Obama supporters will acknowledge that.
Oh, and Micel, yes. When you put something in quotation marks in english you are quoting someone.
Not really Babs. You can use the quotation marks to separate and idea or a phrase from the rest of the sentence, to give it some specefic intention. In this case, I was just trying to recall the McCain gaffe with the name of the article. That was misinterpreted, I give you that. But your knowledge of english is misguiding. If I say that McCain is the “best” candidate for president out there… am I being sincere or just sarcastic? (note: I’m using quotation marks, and I’m not quoting anyone.
Making distracting arguments about correct grammar won’t help you to express your ideas, which I think have great validity. But McCain WAS shown undecided about the existence of a recession, and even concerning the concept of it. And as Michael said in some other post, the war will continue to take its toll in the US economy very fast, and no counter-measure by McCain will remedy that. No reducing of bureucracy or high-income tax cuts will make the US any less dependent on foreign oil (oil Bush and Cheney traded for innocent blood, and McCain has no problem so far with it) or will reduce the unemployment rates.
If a general election is between Obama and McCain, the intention for new politics, and Real Change in Washington, will be a major issue. I hope the McCain supporters will acknowledge that.
I like Michel