Benny's World

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

A Healthy Debate about Elena Kagan's Nomination

I've been following Glenn Greenwald's opposition to the "blank slate" nominee, Elena Kagan, to the SCOTUS. Larry Lessig, Ms. Kagan's good friend, has her back.

BW readers probably can tell that I'm on Glenn's side on this issue (especially as I pointed out and Glenn has since done the same of problems pointed out by Jonathan Turley and Jeffrey Toobin), but as mcjoan at the Daily Kos pointed out this afternoon, this is a healthy debate. Like mcjoan, I hope progressives such as Bernie Sanders, Al Franken and Jeff Merkeley will pick up on these points in forcing Ms. Kagan to take some positions, whether we agree with them or not.

President Obama is squandering a golden opportunity when we have many Democrats who could carry a nominee forward without a single Republican vote. I would prefer a very progressive candidate to hold a candle to the many years Justice Stevens was on the court. If a nominee is too timid to say what's on her mind or fails to address her meager record, our POTUS should withdraw her nomination. Frankness and transparency, which candidate Obama promised, are at stake here and will mark his legacy to be characterized more like W's--more of a unitary executive--instead of a complement of three branches.

Stay tuned. I'm still looking for more opinions besides the ones I posted yesterday and today.

Update: as promised, I found some more opinions and facts via Alternet and Mother Jones. Very discouraging indeed.

Second update: Nate Silver at 538 has an angle regarding actuaries.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 13, 2008

John Edwards on Palin: Too Inexperienced to be President

Today Karl Rove and Rove's worst nightmare John Edwards debated about George Bush's record on the economy, health care, foreign policy at the Commercial Finance Association's annual meeting in SF this morning. Clearly many differences, and I'm still trying to get more details about what they said.

But what I could find from Try-City Herald was they agreed that Palin would need a lot more honing in foreign policy and health care if she contemplates a run in 2012.

From TCH:

Edwards said Palin's inexperience was too much for John McCain's campaign to overcome.

"The problem was, over time, particularly in the vice-presidential debate ... it was fairly obvious she wasn't ready to be president, and that made people nervous," he said.

Otherwise, JRE was greeted warmly by the packed room of nearly 1000 attendees, whereas two demonstrators who called Rove a "war criminal" before being ushered out of the hall by security.

Rove claimed that's how SFranciscans say hello since a similar incident happened to him there last month.

Not so with JRE. They essentially said "welcome back."

(Picture courtesy of THC).

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Benny's World Says: Change the Debate

Tired of trivial questions instead of asking about issues that matter to most of us?



Sign the petition here by Media Matters.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Debate I'd Like to See This Week in Austin

The NYT has a series of questions about Foreign Policy in the Editorial section today that they would like to see Clinton and Obama debate. I agree with them that it's too bad that Obama wouldn't debate Clinton in Wisconsin (knowing its to his advantage not to do so, since he's not a very good debater and he is ahead in the polls) and have a serious discussion of these issues.

So, I hope CNN will pick up some of these questions, and make them talk about them on Thursday.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, November 02, 2007

New Dance: The Double Talk Waltz



The Politics of Parsing.

Priceless.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

JRE Buzz Special Edition: The Son of a Millworker Takes on the Madam of Special Interests: Clinton

Critics lauded JRE and are falling over themselves about his performance at last night's debate. Here's a sampling:

TIME’s Mark Halperin Gave Edwards’ Debate Performance an “A”; Edwards “Came Across As Presidential, Optimistic and Patriotic — Essential for a Winner.” “Impressively he remained above the Clinton-Obama fray (no "look at me" antics) but swept in to best them while the media waited for the pair to duke it out. Calm and cool, he went after Clinton on (let's face it) character, and only occasionally seemed to be trying too hard. Hit both his Democratic and Republican targets with acute precision and impact. Appeared tough enough to perform well in a general election, with the kind of articulate passion he formerly demonstrated in the courtroom. Came across as presidential, optimistic and patriotic - essential for a winner.”

David Yepsen: “John Edwards Emerged As the Evening’s Most Effective and Articulate Challenger to Clinton.” In a blog post titled, “Johnny Be Good,” Yepsen wrote, “John Edwards emerged as the evening’s most effective and articulate challenger to Clinton. She turned in an uneven, sometimes waffling performance…Edwards came ready for the scrap and he helped his candidacy.” [Des Moines Register, 10/30/07]

New York Times: Obama “Was Frequently Overshadowed by Former Senator John Edwards.” “But for all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who — speaking more intensely and frequently — repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton’s credentials and credibility. ‘Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that’s corrupt in Washington, D.C.,’ Mr. Edwards said. ‘She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she’ll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s not ending the war; that’s the continuation of the war.’ He added, ‘I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country’s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.’” [New York Times, 10/31/07]

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “I Think It Was a Good Night for John Edwards. I Think One of His Best Nights of These Debates So Far.” George Stephanopoulos: “I think it was a good night for John Edwards. I think one of his best nights of these debates so far. He was very, very clear. He didn’t back down at all. He knew exactly what he wanted to say about Hillary Clinton, again, that she can’t bring about change.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 10/31/07]

CQ’s Craig Crawford: “I Thought It Was Edwards’ Best Performance So Far.” On MSNBC: Chris Matthews: “Who was ready to be her number one challenger between now and January?”… Craig Crawford: “I thought it was Edwards’ best performance so far.” Crawford later wrote, ““John Edwards was truly passionate about taking on Clinton, targeting her centrist views as ‘doubletalk’ and accusing her of falling in line with hawkish ‘neo-conservatives’ on Iran. Indeed, it was the former North Carolina senator’s most forceful debate performance so far.” [MSNBC, 10/30/07; 10/31/07]

The Nation’s Ari Melber: “John Edwards Had the Strongest Showing.” “John Edwards had the strongest showing, pounding Clinton as the status quo candidate. ‘If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq [with no timetable],’ he said, ‘then Senator Clinton is your candidate.’ Edwards repeatedly presented himself as the most credible ‘change’ candidate.” [ “Edwards & Obama Confront Clinton In Dem Debate...” 10/30/07]

Daily Kos Readers Declared Edwards the Winner. According to the Daily Kos poll following the debate, “Who do you think won the debate,” John Edwards led the pack with 33% of the 8,588 votes cast, followed by Obama at 21%, and Clinton at 16%.

CBS’s Jeff Greenfield: “It Was Former Senator John Edwards Who Used the Toughest Language” On Iran. “But it was former Senator John Edwards who used the toughest language, at one point reacting with incredulity to her claim that a vote to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists was a way of opposing the president.” [“The Early Show,” CBS, 10/31/07]

The Nation’s John Nichols (first reaction): Edwards “Ended the Night as the Candidate Who Had Done the Best Job of Defining Himself as the Alternative to Hillary Clinton.” “It wasn't just a fight about Iran, however. Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. ‘If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate.’ That's tough talk. Blunt talk. The sort of talk that Barack Obama seemed to suggest that he was going to deliver Tuesday night. But it came from John Edwards, who ended the night as the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.” [h, 10/30/07]

Then Nichols added this later: “Edwards, Not Obama, Hits Clinton Hardest, Smartest.” “It was supposed to be the night Barack Obama took Hillary Clinton down. But, when all was said and done, Obama was a bystander…Where Obama was unfocused and ineffectual, John Edwards landed plenty of blows. The former senator from North Carolina began by suggesting that ‘it's fair’ to talk about essential differences between the candidates. Then he highlighted a big one. ‘(Clinton) says she'll stand up to George Bush,’ argued Edwards. "In fact, she voted to give George W. Bush the first step to war on Iran...’… It was a smart, at times intense dialogue…But Edwards owned the moment. Accusing Clinton of voting for an Iran resolution that read like it was ‘written literally by the neo-cons,’ the 2004 vice presidential nominee declared, ‘We need to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we will not let Bush, Cheney and this administration invade Iran.’”

NBC’s Tim Russert: “Edwards Was More Aggressive, More on the Offense than Barack Obama.”
Meredith Viera: “So did Edwards emerge?” Tim Russert: “I think Edwards emerged as the most aggressive candidate against Hillary Clinton…But clearly, looking at their performance last night, Edwards was more aggressive, more on the offense than Barack Obama.” [NBC’s “Today Show,” 10/31/07]

Marc Ambinder: “John Edwards’s Instruments of Persuasion Were Sharper and Louder.” “In this discordant symphony – ‘A Clintonian Lament’ -- John Edwards’s instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama’s were more resonant and more subtle. In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, ‘It’s the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.’” [, 10/30/07]


ABC’s Rick Klein: “It's Rare That a Highlight Comes This Late in a Debate, But Edwards Picks up on That Inconsistency On Immigration.” “10:56 pm ET: It's rare that a highlight comes this late in a debate, but Edwards picks up on that inconsistency on immigration: ‘Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.’ Obama: ‘I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer.’ And Obama calls the Spitzer plan ‘the right idea.’”[ 10/30/07]

Then added Klein: “Edwards Still Seems Better, Though, at Finding Compelling Ways to Set Himself Apart.” “11:05 pm ET: Rick Klein wrapping it up -- Hillary Clinton gave a truly bad answer at the end, on illegal immigration, one that feeds the argument Obama and Edwards were making all night. Did Obama clear the bar he set for himself? Probably yes, but not with much room to spare. Edwards still seems better, though, at finding compelling ways to set himself apart. ” [10/30/07]

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: “Clinton Blurring the Lines AGAIN, Now on Illegal Immigrant Driver's Licenses… Edwards Called Her on It.” “Is Clinton blurring the lines AGAIN, now on illegal immigrant driver's licenses. She said the plan makes sense, but can't commit apparently. She said she didn't say she supports the plan, when Dodd said she did. Russert tried to pin her on it, and she obfuscated again. Edwards called her on it, evoking Bush-Cheney, saying Americans were tired of ‘double talk.’ Obama nodded and got called on and he got to chime in as well. Does this become a problem for her? Can she directly answer a question?” [ “Clinton having it both ways... again?” 10/30/07]

The Politico’s Ben Smith: “John Edwards Kept Up the Pressure Most Skillfully on Clinton… Drove His Point Home When She Refused to Say Whether She Supports” Spitzer’s Plan. “John Edwards kept up the pressure most skillfully on Clinton, putting his courtroom skills to use to build a case, at times mockingly, against the New York senator … Edwards drove his point home when she refused to say whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.” [, 10/31/07]

CNN’s Candy Crowley: Edwards “Stepped Up His Game.” Appearing on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Candy Crowley said, “John Edwards, who has never been shy about going after the frontrunner, stepped up his game, questioning her candor.” [CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” 10/30/07]

CQ’s Craig Crawford: “I thought Edwards made a good point when he said Republicans talk about you so much, because they want to run against you.” [MSNBC, 10/31/07]

Update: MJ Rosenberg at TPM declares Edwards Won.
"But, of the three heavyweights, I was most impressed by Edwards. He combined toughness and vision. Somehow I can imagine that Edwards' agenda for America would have a name like "New Deal" or "Great Society" in other words a rubric that suggests that his program for America would be larger than just his persona. I like that. I'm not so sure about the others.

I think Edwards will win Iowa and then we'll have a real race, one with an almost level playing field. It is not over. That is the main thing I learned last night.

Not over by a long shot."


I'm happy to hear the praise of the critics, but it's very clear none of them believed him when he said he has taken on the big interests before in the court rooms, and beat them at their game.

Madame Clinton, you, along the Re-thugs, represent those big interests and the double talk from the 1990's.

I would not underestimate the one who is the most authentic and will bring about positive change for our country: John Edwards. He's the son of a millworker.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

John Edwards: This is about the Future

From the debate last night:



Joe Trippi says that was his favorite moment. It was one of mine too.

Other post debate thoughts: Paul Bevan,,It's a Matter of Trust

But it was Edwards who reached out last night to try and grab the mantle as the candidate Democrats can trust - and he seemed to do it somewhat effectively. The reason the "trustworthiness" charge is so potentially potent is because it dovetails with - or cuts against, depending on your perspective - the argument for real change, which is what Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) are yearning for this year.

Edwards' accusation is that Hillary is an entrenched part of a corrupt and broken system, and that you simply cannot trust her when she says she's an agent of change. That is a powerful message that probably rings true to many Democrats and arouses deep-seated suspicions about her. Furthermore, it makes her slogan - You can't have change without the "experience and leadership" - seem like another example of hollow Clintonian parsing and triangulation.


David Greene, Democratic Presidential Debate Targets Clinton

Her rivals, however, did not let up. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut went after Clinton for voting in favor of an anti-Iran resolution favored by the Bush administration.

"I believe that this issue is going to come back to haunt us," Dodd said. "We all learned, some of us here painfully back in 2002, that by voting for an authorization regarding Iraq, that despite the language of that resolution, which called for diplomacy at the time, this administration used that resolution, obviously, to pursue a very aggressive action in Iraq."

Edwards jumped on the same vote, suggesting that if the president were to invade Iran, Clinton may offer the same explanation she gave for authorizing force in Iraq.

"Are we going to hear, 'If I only I had known then what I know now?'" he asked.


I will say this, Timmeh asked Dennis a dumb question about UFO's. He handled it well considering he knew it was designed to make him appear as though he wore a tin foil hat.

Interesting debate..still rewatching all of the video clips. You can find them here.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Remember September Again



And Taylor Marsh finally admitted JRE won the debate tonight, from her blog:
Edwards was *brilliant* tonight, Benny. You must be so thrilled.

Clinton stumbled today, starting with her Iran vote. Edwards beat her tonight.

Debate goes to Edwards
And she's right.

Highlight of the night:



FWIW, I heard him say this in February.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, April 27, 2007

Future President Edwards


Photo courtesy of the NYT. Take a good look at who is in the center and looks the most presidential.

Transcript of the debate here.

Labels: , , , , ,

John Edwards: The Question I Wasn't Asked (at Daily Kos)

Last night I was busy blogging at the DU about the debates, and I missed most of the Kos parties, except for the Edwards Evening News, which was on about 8:45. About 11:30 CT, John Edwards dropped by the Daily Kos and let the netrooters know in a way, that he wasn't asked certain questions (and yes, he was asked stupid questions, such as his hair style purchases) on Iraq, so I am going to repost what I missed and many of BW readers probably didn't see either.

Hi.

I hope you all got a chance to watch tonight's debate. These conversations are all about giving the American people the power to make an informed choice about the future of our country. That's why I take my responsibility so seriously to provide specific, honest and complete answers about my beliefs and my plans.

There were a lot of good questions tonight and I was glad that I got to address many important areas of policy and character. But there was one critical question I wasn't asked - one that's extremely relevant right now as President Bush and Congress are set to face off in Washington. I'd like to answer that for you here:

What should we be doing — right now — to end the war in Iraq?

As you've heard, the Senate has followed the House and passed a bill to fund our troops with a timeline to bring them home and end the conflict. Both houses of Congress have now passed funding bills that reflect the will of the American people that we must end the war in Iraq.

The president has said he will veto this legislation, which will defy the American people and deny our troops the funding they need. When that happens, the president will be the one blocking support for our troops, not Congress.

With so much at stake, Congress must stand firm.

If Bush vetoes the funding for our troops, Congress must send the same bill back to the president -- and they should do this again and again--as many times as it takes for Bush to understand that the American people are right and the war must be brought to an end.

In the next few days, the will of Congress will be severely tested. Bush will be doing everything in his considerable power to convince the nation that Congress is responsible for his reckless decision not to fund the troops. Plenty of people in Washington will say the political risks are just too great and Democrats in Congress should just back down.

If there ever was a time to replace political calculation with political courage, that time is now. If Congress shows courage, they can end this war.

But where will they find that courage in the face of Karl Rove's media machine? They'll find it if all of us speak up as loudly as we can in the next few crucial days and demand that our representatives do what is right. Political courage has always been found in the voice of the people - and our voice is needed today.

Thanks for tuning in to tonight's debate and for caring enough about your country to get involved when your country needs you most. I look forward to continuing our work together in the months and years to come.


I might add I was totally annoyed by Madame Clinton's response at the debate about a second Clinton presidency. Sorry, but I want 21st century leadership, not the 1990's.


Labels: , , , ,