DNC Winter Meeting on C-Span : Which speaker did you like best today?

For those who watched the C-Span coverage of the keynote speakers at the DNC Winter Meeting today, there were some excellent speeches. Which speech did you like best? Post your reason(s) why.

And he took on issues (Cutting off Iraq funding, the Israel-Lebanon conflict) that send the others scurrying for a table to hide under.

I only heard Dodd, Obama, and Kucinich make their speech today. But I have heard the others expressing their ideas recently.

Barak Obama made the only speech that addressed the seriousness of the state of affairs so far. Although he made the point hypothetically, by doing so he brought the level of importance right to the top.

I was a Kucinich supporter in the last election. Dennis Kucinich gave a very heart felt speech about suffering in the Middle East today, but instead he should gave a more complete vision forward as Obama did.

I support Mike Gravel this time around and look forward to his presentation tomorrow around 10 am.

5 standing O's, no triangulation rubbish.

And he remembered Molly. The only one to do so.

That is great he brought up Molly Ivins, however he says things with no actual platform to stand on.

He talks about poverty,but what is his actual solution?

He talks about Health Care, but he has no real plan.

He says he is against the war but he only wants you to sign a petition to cut the funding for the surge.

He wants us to believe he is anti war,but he supports bombing Iran.

are just that...ideas. Gee, I think no one should live in poverty. Does that get anything done?

You can't have continuous war, ie the war on terror, bombing Iran (Edwards fully believes in continuing these policies) and take care of Americans here at home.

Just saying things people want to hear does not make a good president.

... long enough to know that any talk of "the" solution is oversimplistic silver bullet thinking. But what is your reason for opposing raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned income tax credit, revamping HUD to get more of its budget into the hands of people in need, or any of the other policies that he has set out over the past year?

It is absurd to suggest that he wants nothing other than for us to sign petitions and contact our Congressmen ... but what is the real point in supporting a toothless resolution? I have listened to Hillary's argument that getting nothing passed is better than trying for something and having it blocked, and I still don't agree with it. Edwards has been calling for a reduction in forces and the start of diplomacy in Iraq for a year now ... and I am happy that Obama has finally joined him.

And the claim that he supports the bombing of Iran is just blogysteria. There is not any substantial difference between the positions of Clark, Clinton, Edwards, or Obama on Iran ... all are opposed to Iran getting the bomb, all have called for the US to engage in diplomacy as opposed to the Bush approach of military force as the first recourse of the incompetent.

Sure he said that all card should be on the table. Sure Bush has said that all cards should be on the table. But when Bush says it, he is lying ... all the diplomatic cards are off the table for Bush ... all the multilateral action cards are off the table for Bush ... ... all the efforts to strengthen the NPT cards are off the table for Bush ...

Think about it. Its not that "all cards are on the table" is a code phrase for, "I want to bomb the suckers". Its that whatever Bush says, he's lying for the cameras and really he just wants to bomb the suckers.

Does he have a job creation program?

Edwards seems like a really nice guy, but his policies seem to support the corporations over the common man. I have the feeling, since he hasn't put forth a plan, his health care will be in support of universal subsidies to the insurance companies.

I don't trust him on the Iran issue because of the things he was just saying in Israel. I don't think it was blown out of proportion. "ALL options are on the table." If he truly feels bad about Iraq, why doesn't he do the research on Iran. Intelligence says they are 10+ years from having a nuke. He should take talk about Iran off the table, because it is all a bunch of propaganda bullshit from the Bush Administration.

If he wants to be a leader, he should stop following Bush's lead.

For that stupid bankruptcy bill passed last year. And he was against it. He's also against credit predators.

I just wish he wouldn't say things like this...

"Iran is serious about its threats," former US Senator John Edwards has told an audience in Israel.

"The challenges in your own backyard – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel," the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination told the Herzliya Conference, referring mainly to the Iranian threat.

In his speech, Edwards criticized the United States' previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.

Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table."

Who has been beating the drum harder about predatory lenders than John Edwards?

One Year After Bankruptcy Bill, It's Well Past Time To Crack Down On Predatory Lenders (Diary on JohnEdwards.com).

How can you say that his policies support the corporation over the common man? It sounds to me like you have him confused with Clinton and Obama. The corporations do not want the minimum wage increased. Where the two had different votes in 2003 on "free trade" deals, it was Clinton who vote pro-corporate-power and Edwards who vote pro-national-interest.

Among the top three, I can't see how that characterization is even plausible.

... bringing the US back to engagement with multilateral institutions is "following Bush lead".

Well, I guess calling BS on Bush is "kind of" following his lead, because first he has to say the BS before Edwards can label it BS.

Bush is not using the issue of Iran threatening to develop nuclear weapons because he cares about nucular prolifarayshun ... he's doing it because that's the issue his advisers tell him will gain the most traction, because there is a growing concern among European nations about nuclear proliferation in neighboring parts of the world, and because its an issue that is getting more serious as a result of the naked US aggression that has undermined multi-lateral institutions like the NPT.

not support him.

Edwards has said we are not doing enough about Iran, that they are a serious threat.
He needs to read the evidence, or lack there of.

... of doing nothing constructive for years, and then focusing our attention on a pointless military strike?

Iran may, as you argue, only be saber rattling, breaking with the NPT to bluff about the development of nuclear weapons in order to attract nationalistic support at home and increased geopolitical leverage abroad ...

... however, I do not see how that justifies the Bush doctrine of empty rhetoric, followed by pointless military action if it seems convenient (to attract nationalistic support at home and ...)

If Iran is simply saber rattling, that makes for even better prospects for success in the alternate strategy of engaging diplomatically with Iran ... a strategy that would seem to be the one proposed by Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

It is not. They need to call Bush on his bullshit, not repeat the lies and help catapult his propaganda.

A finding from the responsible multi-lateral authorities that Iran is abiding by the NPT should be sufficient.

I understand the argument that we should allow the Bush regime to prevent us from saying the truth as we see it if there is the possibility that the truth as we see it could be taken by the right wing noise machine as support for Bush.

But if the fact that Bush has invaded Iraq means that as a political tactic I am supposed to abandon the support for Nuclear Non-Proliferation that I have held for more than three decades, since before I was old enough to vote ... forget it.

Sure, its imperfect. Boo frigging hoo ... its the best we got.

You may think a nation taking advantage of the unpopularity of the US government under the Bush regime to thumb its nose at the NPT is no big deal. Fine: tell me who the candidate is that is happy to see countries thumb their nose at the NPT, so that I know that I am not going to back them.

This is from his interview with Ezra Klein:

... Now that’s on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that’s the first thing that’ll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they’re close to, but we’ve got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that’s the second thing that’ll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we’d actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from? ...
...
Ezra: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?

I think would have very bad consequences.

So when you said that all options are on the table?

It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

It is all bullshit made up by Bush. Edwards, Hillary,Obama are helping support Bush's bullshit.

Who are we to be pointing the finger at anyone being a threat right now? We should back out of our mistake in Iraq and shut the hell up.

We are the problem, not the solution.

... (and set aside Britain as plausibly acting as Bush's lapdog in foreign policy), what about Germany, Russia and China?

Indeed, France as well, given that Chirac's remarks caused such a firestorm in France that he was forced to retract them ... and even there, his remarks were to the idea that the threat, should Iran develop nuclear weaponry, would be low.

Your argument requires, as a correllary, that when a country breaks away from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, that in itself is not sufficient to make them a threat.

I disagree. I support nuclear non-proliferation. The two alternatives we have are to make serious effort to prevent nuclear proliferation or to fail to make serious efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Bush falls in the second camp. His saber rattling and reckless military adventurism has undermined our ability to promote the internation coalition of economic and political clout required to bring Iran back into the NPT fold.

And it would seem that you fall into the same camp with Bush, in saying that breaking with the NPT is simply not enough, you need conclusive proof regarding when Iran will have a bomb before you are willing to support political and economic sanctions to bring Iran back into the NPT fold.

Thank you John Edwards :toast:

Molly!

My vote goes for him. As usual.

n/t

I felt motivated by Edwards speech, Take back the Democratic party, do something for the 37,000,000 out there in poverty and no health care.
I liked:

"you are not the decider, the ameican people are the decideders and they decided a long time ago"

I expected more from Obama's speech, I was hoping for more concrete points but instead I got generalities from him.

Clark, was all about playing off of his military back round, and what and who he know still in Iraq.

Dodd, didn't leave me with anything to remember.

Kucinich, seemed boring, not really any issues to grab on to, talked alot about his travels and what he and his wife saw.

Clinton - I was very disappointed in, she would have been my second choice, but not now that she said she wasn't for universal health care, that the health care system just needed to be reformed.


I am for Edwards, his universal health care to include the mentally ill equally, raising minimum wage, college for those who want it, net neutrality, starting an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, no draft keeping an all voluntary military, addressing poverty here and abroad just for a few reasons.

or fighting poverty.

Doesn't that concern anyone else? You can't just say things, you have to have a real plan to put it into action.

... he has already announced to fight poverty. Its easy to say, "he has no plan" ... its a one liner that is memorable, never mind whether or not it is true.

But it betrays a complete misunderstanding of what will be required to eliminate poverty, and why it is a three decade task. We need plans to reduce poverty, based on what we already know works, and as they take effect, we need to focus on those who are still in poverty, and work out what to do next.

Anyone who says they have "a plan" that will eliminate poverty, in two years or ten years or thirty years, is either a fool or a bald faced liar.

But anyone who says that Edwards does not have specific policies that will in fact reduce the incidence of poverty in this country is just spouting without checking the facts.

And unlike the rest of the Democratic field, and certainly unlike anything any Republican would do, he has set out a specific benchmark to go with the goal of fighting poverty .... a one third reduction in a decade, complete elimination in thirty years.

Will he cancel NAFTA and bring jobs back to America?

As far as health care- he said himself he still doesn't have a plan.

If you can find one,let me know. I have searched his website to no avail.

Not a friggin' one had a detailed plan today, did they? This meeting was to lay out some vision and some rationale in why the candidates want to serve our country in the highest office.

I don't believe the expectations represented by the poster are realistic. The details cannot be spelled out in 15 minutes, which is about all the candidates get.

I repeat: no candidate today, and I predict tomorrow, will have the level of details that the poster sought. This is fundraising season, and also for some, meet the candidates.

And back to the original post question: which speaker did you like the best today. In my case, it was Edwards. In Oliver Willis's case, it was Edwards.

So perhaps the poster could answer the question: which speaker did s/he like the best today?

“The Conyers/Kucinich national health care plan, HR 676, represents a powerful solution for America’s employers and employees alike. It recognizes that annual health care spending in the United States exceeds $2 trillion. If this money went to health care, we would have enough to cover all the health care needs of the American people.

“There is a reason that the CEOs of Canada’s Ford, GM, and Daimler Chrysler publicly expressed their support for Canada’s national health insurance plan.

“They have said ‘Publicly funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada’s overall labour cost advantage in auto assembly, versus the U.S., which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada.’

Kucinich said, “Providing affordable, quality health care has become a great financial burden for American businesses. Companies are forced to pump more money into providing health care for their employees instead of investing funds into new product development or other business investments.

“It’s time for America to join with the rest of the industrial democracies of the world in providing health care for its people. HR 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday with 45 cosponsors.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=56308

The Cost of Health Care is also affecting jobs...

Along with Conyers.

But like I said, there wasn't anyone who talked specifics; it was about vision.

As Edwards said, we need to take action now, not wait until 2009.

Now imagine if we got 9 more Senate seats....

The Democrats collaborating with the Republicans to pass a pointless resolution, or the Democrats pushing a real constraint, getting it through the House and having it tied up in the Senate by the Senate Republicans.

The American people are with us on this one ... we should tighten the screws, not let them off the hook with do-nothing busy work.

Universal Health Care has been introduced into the House of Representatives by Conyers and Kucinich.

Edwards is getting so much attention, if he talked about it, we could push our representatives into passing it BEFORE the next presidential election.

He is doing much more for me, and speaking much more for me than any other Dem.

So, it's too bad you want to criticize him.... maybe you just haven't walked in the shoes enough.

For those of us who are LIVING it, he is a hero!

:loveya: for John and Elizabeth!

John Edwards is not my hero, and I do not support him. But I also will not use this foram to degrade him, but I am getting sick and tired of all the other candidates being done so in his name (and in the name of others). In fact, Edwards people are turning me off to him more every day. I gag now when I see a thread with his name in it and it has little to do with him personally.

Yet anyone who listens to his speech to the National Press Club last June knows that it is not true.

So, basically, you just put the claim out there without knowing one way or the other whether it was true, and in fact it is false.

If you knew what they were, I am sure you would tell me.

Canceling NAFTA is the way to bring back jobs.
Providing Universal Health care is a huge step toward fighting poverty.

Why doesn't Edwards say he will pull out of NAFTA and support the Conyers/Kucinich bill for Universal Health Care right now?!

If we can't have Al Gore, I like the General.


Against the war from the start.

War/foreign affairs/leadership/military/experience.

Clean (as in hard to trash), humble, soft spoken, which keeps the masses from saying "he is so angry", his military back ground will keep him from sounding too angry, stupid jokes, raising his voice, racial slurs, anti-feminist slurs, etc. it's called discipline.

Red states, won the primary here in Oklahoma where we have some large military bases and I could see him getting their votes. I hope to god he's beyond swiftboating, jeez he's a 4-Star General.

I voted for Gore in the 2000 election and I'm still pissed, voted for Dean 2004 even though by that time I knew it was gonna be Kerry, of course, I voted for Kerry.

I live in a very red county and usually vote straight party. Here in OK there's more registered Dem's than Rep's the problem is they don't vote that way!!!!!!!!

(CHANGE YOUR PARTY YOU FUCKING JERKS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HEAVEN IF YOU'RE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN, YA GOD FEARIN BORN-AGAIN NUT-JOBS!!!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~No discipline here, personally I like the anger and the yelling, only this time, can we win?

followed by Kucinich.

He's a bit of a crotchity old guy but I like what he has to say...tough and right on the mark....

I hope the Dems treat him right...and whoever wins the nomination should consider having Mike Gravel in their administration....

Do a Wikipedia check and you'll see that he came close to being the vice presidential candidate in 1972.

I liked Bill Richardson's speech