On the whole, I thought the Bill Clinton rally last night was pretty uninspiring. Not just because he started speaking almost two hours late or because Hofheinz was barely half-full (I think the capacity is 8,500). I haven't been excited about either candidate yet, but the difference I see right now is that going to an Obama rally would probably swing an undecided voter in his direction, but tonight didn't do much to pull me toward Hillary.
Sheila Jackson Lee and Chris Bell did a little bit of introducing and endorsing before President Clinton spoke. Chris Bell still gives a nice little speech, and he's a pretty funny guy. He said that the Bush administration's message has been to "be afraid, stay afraid, and don't forget to go shopping." I wasn't so excited to see him endorse Hillary because I've been leaning toward Obama since Edwards dropped out, but I respect Chris Bell a lot.
Bill Clinton didn't make it to the stage until 10:30, two and a half hours after the doors opened. He made an all right speech that highlighted Hillary's accomplishments and her plans if she's elected. He talked about improving people's lives and futures and helping America and the world come together. Everyone that spoke really emphasized vision and Hillary's experience as a changemaker. President Clinton also talked about the difference between embodying change and empowering people to create change for themselves. I'm pretty sick of both campaigns' change vs. experience messages by now, but I didn't think the anti-Obama case was made very well. Bill did a good job of highlighting the high points of Hillary's policy accomplishments and her agenda, but all of the attacks on Obama were vague and easy to turn the other way.
All of the Clinton campaign paraphernalia looks really 1980s too. Obama and other candidates that have since dropped out have much more contemporary, attractive logos that are still completely classy. Clinton's stuff looks like it was lifted out of a campaign from 15 or 20 years ago, and that doesn't do much in her favor at all.
Even if it wasn't the most exciting night of my life. it was fun to see the former president and I'm so glad that Texas is getting all this attention from the candidates. I don't think I'll be voting for Hillary anytime soon though.
Posted by Alexandria Ragsdale on February 21, 2008 to The making of the President** Hofheinz was barely half-full (I think the capacity is 8,500). **
The Chronicle estimated the crowd at "more than 2000" which leads me to believe it was closer to 2000 than 4000.
Who ever would have thought that UH Cougar Basketball would outdraw former President Clinton?
Then again, Tom Penders is selling a much better product than Bill Clinton is!
Posted by: Kevin Whited on February 21, 2008 1:04 PMI see neither your endorsement nor Burnt Orange's as answering the key question:
- Why take a huge gamble on Barack Obama for President in 2008?
Yes he is ahead in the polls right now, but they are still statistical dead heats, and he has not been through the grist-mill yet.
He may be a great president one day. But he does not have as good a grasp of the issues as she does, he does not offer as liberal of policies as she does, and his answer to this question as to why he is running now as opposed to waiting to gain more national experience (something about "the urgency of now") is lame. He can serve at least one term in the Senate, pass some major legislation on some of the issues he cares about, and then run.
For him to not back true universal health coverage is an enormous disappointment to me.
And right now, in 2008, I feel that he is totally outclassed by Senator Clinton. He only has 3 years of national experience.
If I were the Democratic Party, and had the power to do so, I would keep him in the Senate. He has a great future. It is just not prime-time yet. Like a great quarterback fresh out of college - you don't necessarily want to start him in the first game of the season. You want him to learn under the wing and guidance of a seasoned pro. Barack Obama has not done that yet.
As a Democrat voter, we need to vote for someone with the best experience, and the best policies, right now. That person (for me) is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Posted by: Mike on February 21, 2008 2:14 PMYes he is ahead in the polls right now, but they are still statistical dead heats, and he has not been through the grist-mill yet.
The grist-mill is exactly why Hillary is as behind as she is. Most of the American people are tired of the negative politicking and the mud slinging which Hillary loves so much.
He may be a great president one day. But he does not have as good a grasp of the issues as she does, he does not offer as liberal of policies as she does, and his answer to this question as to why he is running now as opposed to waiting to gain more national experience (something about "the urgency of now") is lame.
Maybe because he feels like if he waits and lets things in Washington continue as they have, it may be too late 8 years from now. Moreover, I think it is the burden of others to show why he SHOULDN'T run right now. Clearly a majority of voters thus far disagree with your assertion that he should wait.
He can serve at least one term in the Senate, pass some major legislation on some of the issues he cares about, and then run.
Why is Senate experience the grand measure of experience? Also, why is a mere 4 additional years of experience such a huge difference between Clinton and Obama?
For him to not back true universal health coverage is an enormous disappointment to me.
You should be disappointed in Hillary as well -- her plan technically doesn't constitute universal health care either. If you read the material from her website, you'll see that it is similar to the incentive-laden system Obama has supported.
And right now, in 2008, I feel that he is totally outclassed by Senator Clinton. He only has 3 years of national experience.
So you repeat the tired argument over federal government experience and somehow equate that to Obama being "outclassed"? That makes no sense.
If I were the Democratic Party, and had the power to do so, I would keep him in the Senate. He has a great future. It is just not prime-time yet. Like a great quarterback fresh out of college - you don't necessarily want to start him in the first game of the season. You want him to learn under the wing and guidance of a seasoned pro. Barack Obama has not done that yet.
Luckily, the Democratic party has exhibited better sense than this.
I don't recall Tom Brady or Ben Rothlisberger being "seasoned pros" when they won their first Super Bowls -- even your illogical analogy doesn't work in your favor.
As a Democrat voter, we need to vote for someone with the best experience, and the best policies, right now. That person (for me) is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The problem is that no matter how good Clinton's policies may be (or how similar they may be to Obama's policies), she will present so much fodder for the far-right that even if she won the election, she would have next to no political capital with which to accomplish any of her goals. If she won, it would likely be by a slim margin, giving her no real mandate.
Obama, on the other hand, appears to have a significant edge in bringing independents and Republicans together with the Democratic party to achieve his goals. He won't bring the same baggage and hopefully he can do more to stop the politics of personal destruction that became such a common theme in politics throughout the 1990's.
Posted by: Bobby L. Warren on February 21, 2008 3:57 PM"He only has 3 years of national experience."
And you know what? That makes it less likely that he has been bought out by the special interest groups the way Hillary and Bill Clinton have. Although to be honest, looking at it all, they seem to be a special interest group all to themselves.
"For him to not back true universal health coverage is an enormous disappointment to me."
You need to take a look at how this plan of Hillary's which really isn't a plan of Hillary's has worked in Massachusetts. It is a disaster. And serves only the insurance providers. No one else. But then who does Hillary really serve in promoting this plan? The insurance providers.
"If I were the Democratic Party, and had the power to do so, I would keep him in the Senate."
That is what worries quite a few people. That the DLC in particular will do just that by manipulating the superdelegate commitments.
Better face the same reality that should have been faced in Texas in 2006. Some Democrats will not hold their nose just to vote for a Democrat. The Republicans may believe in "anyone but a Democrat" which is why this country is in the mess that it's in, but not all Democrats believe in "anyone but a Republican." The growing number of Independents in this country are a reflection of the reality. The people themselves are tired of the party system and the party candidates selected in backroom deals. And in some cases, boardroom deals.
This country has been hijacked by politicians who while proclaiming themselves to be Democrat or Republican are really Republicrats - they do not serve anyone or anything but the special interests. Time for people to wake up.
The Republicrats want Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate. They wanted McCain as the Republican candidate because they knew he would ensure Hillary Clinton would win. He's already on "crash and burn" mode and will be finished long before he is declared the nominee.
The one thing they didn't count on was the enormous public support of Barack Obama. And that in itself is reason enough to vote for him and put him in the White House. Because he will take the White House back for the people.
Posted by: Baby Snooks on February 21, 2008 5:21 PM