Richardson is like the Republicans Fred Thompson, half the time they are not coherent, and the other half they just ramble on. In any case this debate seemed to be about Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
There were definite moments when Edwards was the man. The story of the little girl who dies because of corporate red tape and greed was powerful and fits nicely into his populist rhetoric. Edwards was best when he let his populist rhetoric loose, and not trying to be BFF (best friends foreever) with Obama.
The whole me and Obama are the reformers did very little for me. The lets gang up on the girl seemed more political than personal. Edwards big line was, for me its personal not political, this stunt worked against that, it felt very political. The double team made his rhetorical populism less authentic and gave the impression that he was selling out.
I watched Hillary on C-SPAN earlier in the day and was surpisingly impressed. She responded very intelligently to a variety of questions from what to do with vacant manufacturing plants, to preventing autism. What I was most intrigued by was all of her positions were linked to this or that policy.
In the debate her whole, talk is cheap, deeds are golden, worked very well for her. Hillary’s record , for middle class issues, is much better than many people think. In 2005, Hillary received an A from Drum Major, the same score as Edward Kennedy and Russ Feingold. In contrast, Obama only received a C. Early yesterday morning Hillary had already got on the recession band wagon. As the economy heads south her “gifts” for the middle class could really start working to her advantage.
Obama is a slick salesman. He could probably sell you shit on a stick. One, of course, should look deeper and judge him by the content of his deeds not the slickness of his rhetoric.
After one of Obama’s rants on energy, Clinton mentioned Obama supported the 2005 Energy Bill , that she voted against. This bill was a collection of tax breaks for energy companies written by the Republican congress. This is what the Drum Major Institute had to say about the bill.
What the bill does do is provide massive taxpayer subsidies—to the tune of $85.1 billion dollars—for some of the world’s most profitable corporations, so that, among other things, they can drill on public land while paying the public less, ultimately leaving middle-class families to pick up a bigger share of the cost of public services. Finally, although the legislation comes at a time of overwhelming scientific evidence about the dangers of global warming and increased concern about the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, it does very little to address either problem, neglecting to even increase fuel efficiency standards for cars.
Another bill Obama supported in 2005 (Clinton didn’t), which was disastrous for the middle class, was the Class Action Fairness Act. Here is what Drum Major had to say about its effect on the middle class.
This bill would limit Americans’ ability to receive federal bankruptcy protection when they lose their jobs, incur uninsured and uncovered medical bills or when a wage-earning spouse leaves. The legislation, which has been introduced every session since 1998 but never passed before, enacts the wish list of the credit card industry, boosting the profits of credit issuers by making it easier for them to collect from even the most financially distressed families.
It empowers the credit card industry to saddle middle-class families with unreasonable
interest rates and payment agreements by expanding their ability to re-evaluate and terminate debtor agreements without the consent of a court. The bill also creates a windfall for unregulated credit counseling agencies.
I know, I know, the legend sounds so much better.