I don't know everyone's record on things, but despite Clinton's label as divisive, I think she's shown that she can and will work with the other side on things. It seems to me that people who get to know her, like her, respect her, and find they can work with her. She needs to talk about that more.
I've also noticed what this post pointed out--that if you seem willing to compromise, then you're triangulating. Of the top 3, I really feel Edwards would be the most divisive and least able to bring both sides together for effective policy.
Posted by CG at November 8, 2007 07:24 AMThank God the Decider doesn't have these triangulat'n problems.
Candy Crowley is Tweety looking into a transexual mirror.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 8, 2007 07:51 AMI really feel Edwards would be the most divisive and least able to bring both sides together for effective policy.
Edwards would realize real quickly that if he wants to get anything done it's gonna require working with both sides. And that's how he'd govern. Election rhetoric is one thing. Actually acheiving anything is another.
Posted by snark at November 8, 2007 08:25 AMIn the absence of any comprehensive federal policy, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow the states to address the problem in their own way.
By the way, it's not called triangulating double talk, It's called Federalism.
Posted by JoeCHI at November 8, 2007 08:32 AMWell yeah, Edwards response is nonsense.
In fact, from the standpoint of NY State the issue has nothing to do with immigration or illegal immigrants. The DMV is not going to be asking people who apply for a license if they're illegal immigrants. They just won't be asking at all about your US citizenship. Anyone seeking a license will need to show proof of residency in New York State. And, absent a social security number 6, yes that's right 6, distinct pieces of documentation showing residency in the state will be required to apply.
This has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with safe roads.
Posted by snark at November 8, 2007 08:42 AM"Edwards would realize real quickly that if he wants to get anything done it's gonna require working with both sides."
I guess that's based on what we've experienced over the past 6.5 years.
"I really feel Edwards would be the most divisive"
Why?
Posted by Gay Veteran at November 8, 2007 10:07 AMI guess that's based on what we've experienced over the past 6.5 years
Are you comparing Edwards to Bush?
If John Edwards pushes half of what he preaches now once in office I'll be highly surprised. Do you think Edwards is really gonna just pop in there and flush the status quo out?
Posted by snark at November 8, 2007 10:19 AMThis nation has gotten used to the MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY approach to problems. When Bush went to California after the forest fires he said to Schwartzenegger I AM GLAD TO FINALLY HAVE A GOVERNOR I CAN TALK TO. The inferrence being that because Kathleen Blanco is a Democrat he let the people of New Orleans suffer.
I only pray we get a president who thinks before he/she speaks because that is the mark of intelligence. A good President needs to get opinions from all side in order to make competent decisions. This is what Bill Clinton did as President and he is at 63% approval right now. Bush the cowboy diplomat is at 21%.
Hillary has done just the right thing. The Repubs need to destroy her before she has the temerity to fix this nation's problems
Posted by s hall at November 8, 2007 11:11 AMSnark -- The problem for Edwards is that he needs attention to get votes so he says one thing but as president would do quite another.
Hillary is the only one who speaks and she would govern.
Posted by s hall at November 8, 2007 11:16 AMSnark -- The problem for Edwards is that he needs attention to get votes so he says one thing but as president would do quite another.
Hillary is the only one who speaks as she would govern.
Posted by s hall at November 8, 2007 11:16 AMSnark -- The problem for Edwards is that he needs attention to get votes so he says one thing but as president would do quite another.
I don't think it's as intentionally deceptive as your description implies S Hall. I think he may actually believe he can change things. I think he'll even try real hard to change things. May even make a dent. But reality will probably smack him about the head and face until he realizes that any real good he will accomplish as president will only happen with the cooperation, be it grudging or not, of at least the moderate republicans and the monied corporate interests.
Posted by snark at November 8, 2007 11:38 AMHillary doesn't speak as she would govern any more or less than any other candidates. Do you think Dennis Kucinich would govern the way he talks? Please.
Posted by Duckman GR at November 8, 2007 11:42 AMWhat's that expression?
If it sounds to good to be true it probably came out of the mouth of a politician.
Posted by snark at November 8, 2007 11:52 AMwell said. well said, indeed. have you seen this yet?
HILLARY vs. Miss South Carolina
Posted by redstatesman at November 8, 2007 12:48 PM"I really feel Edwards would be the most divisive"
Why?
Because he'd try the hardest to stick to what he wants to do, which he won't be able to do. Snark thinks reality will prevail and he'll govern with the cooperation of the other side. Could be true. I'm worried he'd be more inclined not to give in on anything--kind of Bush-like except I'd agree with him most of the time. I have no problem with any of the democrats being president--really any of them. So I'm not bashing Edwards. I just don't think he's the one to bridge the gap. But maybe nobody can. As much as I love this blog and progressive talk radio, all this one-sided stuff (of course on the right even 10 times more) just divides us.
Posted by CG at November 8, 2007 12:56 PMI thought that Edwards would be more logical in his lawyerly prosecution of Clinton but I am baffled by this accusation:
E said that Hillary's answer was aimed at the general election not the primary and then said we needed someone who said the same thing in every venue. Can someone parse this?
As I heard this, he accused her of saying now what she will be saying in the general, but that proves she will say something different(?!)
With that answer and the hysterical phony attacks (the problem in America is that Hillary is running for -- and winning -- the position he wants) he went from my second choice to fifth or sixth.
Posted by logic101 at November 8, 2007 02:13 PMGood point logic101. Hillary does get a lot of crap for supposedly running a general election campaign now, rather than pandering to the base now and pandering to the center later.
Posted by CG at November 8, 2007 02:52 PMAfter bush has destroyed the constitution - and let's not forget he has a while left as president! I am hoping that Hillary can come along and make it all better. I'm fully aware it may not be that easy, but I remain optimistic.
Posted by Blabble at November 8, 2007 05:05 PMHillary Clinton is the only candidate that has these 4 attributes: integrity, honor, patriotism, and compassion. I dare you to find another candidate with these attributes. I got $35 in the bank that says you won't be able to find one. You can count on it.
Posted by Vote for Hillary Online at November 8, 2007 05:58 PMVote, I've got one: Dennis Kucinich. Make my check out to me, my name is spelled below. I won't even keep it, I'll send it directly to DK's campaign.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 8, 2007 09:12 PM