NY-10 Showdown 5/28 Wed. Night, Towns? Vs. Powell

From Democracy for New York City:

Democracy for NYC is hosting a candidate forum this Wednesday in Congressional District 10, where Kevin Powell is challenging incumbent Congressman Edolphus Towns in the Democratic primary. Join us to ask questions and learn about important urban issues and how they are influenced by acts of Congress.

What: Candidate Forum in CD-10. Invited Candidates, in alphabetical order: Kevin Powell (invited & confirmed), Edolphus Towns (invited, not confirmed)

When: This Wednesday, May 28th, 7:30 - 8:30pm

Where: Boat Bar, 175 Smith Street, between Wycoff & Warren, in Brooklyn. Take the F train to Bergen Street, and walk one block south on Smith. Even if you're coming from Manhattan, it's a quick trip.

Why: This is a safe Democratic seat, so the winner of this primary is virtually guaranteed to win in November and represent Brooklyn in Congress. In our fight to take back Congress, many have expressed concerns about getting involved in primaries. I certainly respect every one's right to make their own decisions as to how they volunteer and contribute money. But if we ignore primaries in safe Democratic seats, we're basically ignoring the 40 or 50 seats across the country in urban areas, representing mainly African-American and Latino voters. The progressive community should be taking part in these races to ensure that urban issues are on the agenda of Congress. It is a mistake to believe that representation in these districts is satisfactory, as long as it is big-D Democratic. Forums and primaries provide a great opportunity to make sure we have a strong, progressive Democratic majority in Congress.

Of course this a solidly blue district, we're talking about Brooklyn here people. However, primaries are held to replace leaders we don't like in our own party or to "hold them to the fire." Healthy opposition for incumbents is a part of our democracy and anyone that thinks otherwise might want to look up the definition for 'fiefdom.'

I write question marks next to Towns' name because he hasn't confirmed his attendance and in all likelihood, he won't show up. Nevertheless it will be a good opportunity for people in NY-10 or any curious New Yorker to meet the people that put their names on the line to run for higher office.

In case you can't make it, count on me to blog the event and get a YouTube video up as well.

The Debate

Thankfully its the last, enjoy:

Olbermann Recaps The Dem Debate

The Lone Star Debate Shows Two Different Candidates

Whoa nellie, what a debate that was. After mulling over issues, there was that pointed moment in the back and forth where Clinton went after Obama for "plagiarizing" his campaign co-chairs words that Gov. Patrick wanted him to use. As Obama said, that was silly and not what America wants to hear about in politics.

Lets go back to the issues now. Although there were many similarities, differences abounded. On Cuba, Hillary said no dice to talking to Raul Castro. Obama said he'll talk to but wanted to demand human rights from the communist nation. When it comes to foreign relations, we need to talk to everyone, friend or foe. Score that one for Obama.

On Iraq....it isn't even close. Her votes show that she is a hawk that only tries to mildly placate Democrats that have been passionately against the war. She proved that when she voted for the resolution against Iran not too long ago and far enough after her Iraq vote when the folly of this type of war is already well known.

Health care is something she did very well on. We do need universal care and it must be mandated. Barack wants to negotiate more between the two parties. He thinks that instead of ram-rodding a policy through we should do it in a more bi-partisan way. While it would be great to work with everyone, Hillary is right that you got to be tough when it comes to putting a comprehensive program together you have to fight for it.

Now what everyone is talking about are two things from the debate. One is the xerox comment that fell flat when she attacked Obama. The other is her closing line. It sure did sound good and probably won her the debate. Though doesn't it sound similar to a couple of other speeches? Regardless if she took lines from her husband or John Edwards, the key thing to take from tonight is whether Hillary won big or not. Many agree that she won, but not enough. As Donna Brazile said on CNN a few moments ago, both candidates spoke to their supporters and held onto them...neither won anyone from the other side. In the moment, that news is good for the front runner in this campaign.

Another Day, Another Debate

This time only two candidates were able to show up in Los Angeles for this week's installment of the Democratic debate. The Kodak Theatre hosts a lot of stuff, but since the writers are on strike I guess it is a little less crowded and so they fit Hillary and Barack in. So what is the big thing here? Well basically it is that Democrats can remain civil and dare I say, friendly, while last night we saw McCain and Romney beat each other with figurative baseball bats. One could say the air is different over the hills in Simi Valley as opposed to Hollywood, but rather unlikely.

Of course there were differences as well. The two minorities diverge on Iraq, immigration and health care to name a few. On Iraq, Hillary defended her vote for the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq, saying that she trusted George Bush that war was a last resort. Obama called her out on this and restated he has been against the war since it started. If anyone believes that Hillary had full faith in the words of George Bush, that should disqualify her right there. That is one reason I can't vote for her in the primary.

Immigration was another thing that caught the eyes and ears of the blogosphere, from DailyKos:

Interesting difference in how they answered the immigration question and how immigration affects job losses. Obama emphasized that he won't scapegoat, a position that would be popular with Latinos. Clinton emphasized that there are job losses caused by illegal immigration, which should appeal more to working class white voters, especially in the Midwest. Both are correct, but it's an interesting difference in emphasis.

Slight difference but its still there.

And then there's health care:

The two candidates also gently tangled on the universal health care issue with Obama criticizing the mandated purchase of insurance policies that are the center of Clinton's plan. "You can mandate it but there still will be people who cannot afford it," Obama said. Obama said he was intent on "bringing all parties together" to get a plan approved and that those negotiations would be "broadcast on C-Span."

Clinton rebutted the argument saying her plan "has been designed to be affordable with health care tax credits." Clinton said she was "proud " of her record on the issue.

I'm proud of her attempts in 1993 and 1994, but ever since then she has been a friend of the industry, not the uninsured and underinsured. I'm a big believer in following the money....and there's a lot of cookie jars being delivered to Hillary care of the health insurance industry.

Despite these differences, both are far and away better than anything that the Republicans can come up with and the voters have shown this so far in the primary states that have voted already. Like the crowd at the Kodak Theater, Democrats are charged up and excited about 2008, the same can not be said of the GOP.

Mrs. Inevitable No More

Olbermann highlights why Mrs. Clinton's inevitability really isn't that inevitable:

Chris Wallace Is One To Talk

Here and there, I find myself agreeing with Chris Wallace of Fox News. Now is one of those times. He felt himself getting 'even stupider' watching the CNN debate in Nevada last week, well so did I (from what I saw afterwards that is). As Chris said, Wolf Blitzer did a terrible job, but did anyone expect him to be anything other than an maestro for the media narrative of the Democratic candidates?

Now as for Chris...Mr. Wallace works for Fox News and is therefore a representative of the network. As any clearly thinking person knows, Fox is an outlet of propaganda for the right, not any type of purveyor of truth (not that the other networks excel at that either). Chris mentioned that Fox is "smarter" at doing debates because they let people talk. That is just utter nonsense. All you need to do is look up Bill O'Reilly in the dictionary to refute that piece of garbage.

The thought occurred to me while reading that story that Chris was making an appeal to host a debate for the Democrats. That would be atrocious if the candidates accepted an offer from Fox. Thankfully Democrats (led by Edwards) turned them down earlier this year. The questions from Chris and Co. wouldn't just follow a media narrative, it would be far worse. I could just imagine the questions..."Why do you hate America?" and "Why do you decry George Bush while the country is doing so well due to his policies?" Yeah, if watching CNN's debate is like hearing fingernails scraping across a chalkboard, Fox would waterboard us for two hours.

So instead of Chris being high and mighty about Fox versus CNN's pathetic attempt at hosting debates, he might just want to STFU unless he wants to talk about the truthiness at Fox first.

One Last Thing About CNN's Nevada Debate

I seriously do not understand how the traditional media gets to spin their circus show debate any which way they please. Everyone with a mic and a camera are saying that Hillary won the debate, especially CNN. At least the chief MSNBC political hack Chris Matthews had a couple of progressive viewpoints told on his show that refute the unconventional wisdom.

From Crooks and Liars:

Download (125) | Play (140) Download (136) | Play (71) (h/t Heather)

Tweety had progressive radio giants Mark Green and Ed Schultz on to talk about Hillary’s big win at the debate in Las Vegas Thursday night and apparently Schultz didn’t get the memo.

Schultz: “I think all this postmortem of this debate about how wonderful Hillary is a bridge too far. I think it’s a sad day when a candidate has to start saying well its mud-slinging if you point out what my voting record is.” … “CNN, and especially Wolf, I think they were bending over for Hillary big-time last night.”

Ed also went on to make several other good points too that went against what’s become conventional wisdom regarding who “won” the debate. I’m not saying Hillary did poorly, because it surely was an improvement over her last debate in Philly and clearly she owned the audience all night who were quick to come to her defense to boo Edwards and Obama when each tried to attack her record, but she had a lot of help from CNN too. Not only was the network completely unfair in the amount of time they gave to most of the other candidates, they also were caught planting a softball question from the audience specifically for her to end the night that they had to admit to and then they followed that by having James Carville and David Gergen featured on their post-debate show, both of whom had previously held positions in her husband’s administration and Carville is currently listed as an “informal advisor” to her campaign. That’s quite a coup for any campaign to pull off and should be cause for anyone to re-evaluate the entire evening. Quite frankly, if Hillary won the debate, then any record of the win deserves an asterisk beside it.

So I’m wondering. Who do you think won the debate?

I personally think we all lost. No one really won the debate, because it wasn't a debate. Our democracy is being pulled asunder by the cable news networks so that they can create a narrative that sells their "product." Hillary may have won some points in the horse race, but that is exactly what it is, a horse race. This is not a public forum where voters can choose a candidate based on real issues.

Diamonds, Pearls And CNN's Manipulations

This is one of the serious questions that CNN had Maria Luisa ask Senator Clinton. How embarrassing for the network when it turned out that they forced her to use that instead of the original pre-approved question that she had come up with by herself.

Enough With These Damn Debates

I've complained before and I'll complain again about these faux debates that the networks host for candidates to come on to pomp and preen. Last time it was Tim Russert and MSNBC that got the blame for ridiculous questions, now its Wolf Blitzer and CNN. These people are all the same, its really revolting. To them it is about entertainment for entertainment's sake, not asking real questions to inform the voting public. It is people like Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert that help to undermine our democracy, slowly but surely.

Matthew Yglesias nails it:

As ever, it's really striking to observe the difference between the audience-generated questions and the journalist-generated questions. Wolf Blitzer's main interest is in asking questions designed to put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion, even if those questions are about things like driver's licenses or "merit pay" for teachers that aren't really under federal purview. Efforts to reframe those questions by putting those topics in the larger context of immigration policy more generally or education more generally are derided as cowardly dodges. The point, after all, is to force a choice -- piss off an interest group, or say something that could be used in a GOP attack ad.

The real people, by contrast, ask about problems in their lives. The mother of an individual ready reserve member wants to know about Iran policy. The mother of an active duty soldier wants to know about military pay versus pay for military contractors. An Arab-American wants to know about racial profiling. Then the candidates explain what they think about these issues.

The voters are curious and want to learn where the candidates stand. Blitzer doesn't care about informing the public about the issues -- he actually objects when candidates try to explain their views on broad immigration policy issues -- he's just interested in trying to embarrass the candidates.

Perhaps we can try a citizen's style debate. Let the candidates have at it on YouTube, maybe that kid who interviewed Mike Gravel in his dorm room wants a second shot at fame. Seriously anyone can do better than Wolf or Tim.

Thank You Senator Dodd

I've already expressed my displeasure about how the "debate" was setup by MSNBC to follow the media's narrative and that for the most part, the entire two hours was a pathetic show that seemed more like "Presidential Idol" than a real debate. Well Chris Dodd is expressing the same opinion more or less over at Huffington Post and I think it is about time that we actually get to hear important questions and the answers we need to hear to pick an able 44th President.

Here are some of his desired questions and the answers to them as well:

1. Less than two weeks ago, Senator Dodd, you announced you would filibuster any FISA legislation that included retroactive immunity. Why are you opposed to amnesty?

Quite simply: you can't defend America if you don't defend the Constitution.

The Bush administration came to the telecom companies, some even before 9/11, and asked them to eavesdrop on Americans. They didn't produce court orders or warrants to justify their surveillance. And the telecoms went along with it.

These companies have some of the best legal counsel money can buy. They know the law through and through. And they broke it anyway. That is inexcusable and I'm not about to let Congress step in and stop lawsuits against them for violating the privacy of ordinary Americans.

2. Do you think waterboarding is torture?

Absolutely, according to both US law and international conventions. And in my view, the Bush Administration knows full well it is.

He also stated why he opposes Mukasey's nomination (and for good reason), just click on the Huffington Post link above. Even though Dodd was never my first choice, nor sadly does it seem like he has much of a chance, he is showing himself to be a true leader in his campaign and when he gets up on the debating stage. America desperately needs a leader, and not one that will lead us off the cliff and into the abyss of authoritarianism such as Bush has been doing for nearly seven years now.

Biden Obliterates Giuliani

Joe might not have much of an impact on the Democratic primary, but his line on Rudy Giuliani was definitely one of the most memorable moments from last night:

You Call This A Debate?

First of all, shame on MSNBC for this pathetic format. Lincoln and Douglas would roll over in their graves if they knew what the media calls "debate" these days. Seriously, why is there a lightening round? What's next, starting a show called "Who wants to be our next President Idol"?
And of course Hillary was placed in the middle with Edwards and Obama at her side. I'd rather see Dodd or Kucinich placed in that center spot...and where the hell is Gravel, if he wants to make a fool of himself on Primetime then let him.

Basically these two hours of my life spent watching this debate theater was nothing more than getting some amusement. I particularly liked Joe Biden's highlight about Giuliani:

Biden: Rudy Giuliani is probably the most underqualified person since George Bush to run for president. He can only say 3 things in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and 9/11. "This man is truly not qualified to be president. I'm looking forward to running against Rudy Giuliani."

Hell yeah! Thats the spirit I want to hear in all of seven of these people. I don't know who won this thing, but I must say that Richardson completely blew it. Mr. "We need a diplomat and I am a you-know-what" should bow out quickly and look to run for Senate next year. We need a strong candidate in New Mexico for that open race and he'd be perfect for that.

One candidate I did like was Kucinich. I know he doesn't have a shot in hell at winning (though at least he wasn't placed all the way on the side by MSNBC) but he has the money answers. Not-for-profit health care, consistent stand against the war in Iraq and pointing out that it was all about oil are exactly the things they all should be saying. I still have a problem with his anti-choice record, but you can't always get everything you want in a candidate. Still, he doesn't have a shot in hell.

So what dramatic change will happen in the polls and the media narrative tomorrow?

Absolutely zip, zilch, zero.

Super Tube Debate

Warning! This parody of the YouTube debate is not intended for the comically-challenged or easily-offended. I certainly LMFAO, hope you do as well.

Rachel Maddow Discusses The "Gay" Debate

Richardson Came Out Blue, But Stumbling Over Rainbows

This past Saturday I got Governor Richardson to take a picture with me at YearlyKos with my thermal camera on this MacBook. We both came out blue which was nice to see. Unfortunately he had some problems with the the color spectrum yesterday when some of the candidates got together to talk about GLBT rights in America.

From RawStory:

Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson declared homosexuality a "choice" after a question from lesbian signer Melissa Etheridge during the Democrats' "gay debate" Thursday night.

Etheridge, one of the panelists, asked the governor whether he considered homosexuality "innate" or a choice.

“It’s a choice,” he replied.

"Suggesting Richardson might have misunderstood," remarked the gay paper Southern Voice, Etheridge "then rephrased her question to ask him whether he thinks 'a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade, we go, 'Ooo, I want to be gay.'"

Richardson stumbled.

“It’s, it’s, it, you know, I don’t see this as an issue of science or definition,” he said. “I see gays and lesbians as people, as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know, I don’t like to categorize people. I don’t like to answer definitions like that, that you know perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don’t understand.”

The comeback was ok, human decency should be applied to all humans, regardless of our differences. But Governor, the science is in, our sexual orientation is not a choice. The only choice is to either express who you are or hide in a society that has so much discrimination against people being different, especially when it comes to this issue.

Richardson's further 'clarifications' didn't do much in the way of damage control. He couldn't just come out and say that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Why he refuses to do so is beyond me.

Daily Show Covers YearlyKos Forum And Republican Mistakes

Jon uncovers a little of Hillary's lobbying shenanigans and Sunday's Republican debate that was just, well, pitiful.

The Top Ten YouTube Debate Questions

PoliticsTV puts together the top ten questions posed to the Democratic candidates:

No, Thank You Howard

DNC Chairman Howard Dean thanks the youtube community for their participation in this week's debate. I want to thank him for helping make the internet so influential in politics. His campaign helped touch it off and so many others contributed as well, but as a former Deaniac, I've gotta give the love back to Howard.

Daily Show Examines CNN YouTube Debate

Ok I swear this is the last post about the YouTube debates, but who else than Jon Stewart and John Oliver can truly sum things up?