Democratic National Convention - Day 1
Thursday, January 25, 2007
(The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation)
Democratic National Convention - Day
1
Guest: Richard C. Harwood, Special to
MSNBC
Welcome back Mr.
Harwood!
Good to be back.
I look forward to hearing everyone's
questions.
Let's start with
Clinton's speech last
night.....
donus-guest says:
The Clinton speech was just like he is--all
about me--good rhetoric and no truth, no
substance
I thought it was
vintage Clinton. Great rhetoric in the best
sense of the word. Defended his 8 years and
pushed Gore to the forefront. The question is
whether or not what happens with Gore, not what
happens with Clinton.
Growlin
says: Rick Do you think that Pres. Clinton's
speech completely blew the Bush camp outa the
water ??
No, I don't. I
think the president's speech may have a few
days of life on the news circuit, but beyond
that it won't have much bearing on this
campaign when all is said and
done.
cranky-yankee-guest
says: to either guests: Realizing it is oh so
early, what do either of you think the impact
of the third party candidates on each side will
be and who will see the biggest benefit of the
two "mainstream"
candidates?
Right now it
looks as though Nader has the greatest
potential to hurt the Democrats as opposed to
whoever gets the Reform nod to hurt Bush. But
it's a long race and if it tightest up, which
it probably will, the extend of Nader's effect
on the race will diminish over time. As for the
Reform party candidates, we still don't know
who they'll be and neither do
they.
steve_baxley-guest says:
Was it just me , or was the clinton walk, sort
of ..well "ELVISESQUE"
??
I thought it was a bit
over the top. It reminded me of athletes
walking through the tunnel before the big game
except for the fact that for this president
he's not going to play the big game, he's had
eight years to do that. I thought it was over
the top and a bit too much about himself and
not as much about his
presidency.
RAYID-guest says:
rick do u think we will ever have more than 50%
vote in this country?..just look at this room
nobody talks about
issues
Yes, I do
absolutely believe we will get over the 50%
mark again. Maybe not in this election, but I
do believe that Americans care very deeply
about the issues that affect their lives. I do
believe this campaign has important issues at
hand and I think it's only a matter of time
before politics starts to improve and people
more fully engage in it
again.
fred-guest says:
Rich... There's a big controversy in this chat
about Clinton's role in the health of the
economy... How do u think that will play out
withe the voters??
I think
the voters have already made up their minds who
helped bring about this robust economy. I don't
think that's the issue in this campaign. I
think the issue is who can best lead this
country for the next four years. The extend to
which the parties argue over the past will be
the extent to which fewer voters decided to
come out and vote in the
future.
wanda-guest says:
Rich, hey did we listen to the same speech, I
don't think so, that speech was about King
Bubba, nothing more or less, do you really
think AlGore is happy about that speech
today?????
That's a good
question. Not necessarily. What is so striking
between the Republican and Democratic
conventions, at least how they're laid out, is
that everything about the Republican convention
was geared towards Governor Bush. This
convention doesn't seem to be on the same track
about Gore. So in that sense I think Gore might
be quite ambivalent about last
night.
Nam_Vet-guest says:
Rich....dems rhetoric make you think the
election is about the future...in
fact....elections are about the past.....if
people are happy with the administration and
what they've accomplished...they vote them back
in office....I think people aren't happy with
the administration and therefore will vote them
out....
I think elections
are about how we connect the past with the
future. So, two things need to be present -
somewhat good feeling about the past and a
belief in the candidate who'll lead the nation
in the future. Gore has his hands full in
pursuing both those
mandates.
Katia-guest says: As
and independent voter I am finding this
Democratic convention much more helpful in the
way I'm going to choose. To answer the
president's question I am better off today that
I was eight years ago. I want to continue. Do
you think that statement made a home run with
any other independent or undecided
voters?
My honest answer
is I think it's too soon to tell. I don't have
any reason to suggest it will break one way or
the other right
now.
miss_spy-guest says:
Hock and Mr. Russert, do you think Hillary lost
her bid for the Senate last night? Miss
Spy
Why do you ask the
question that way?
DK-guest
says: Rich...How do 20 somethings feel about
social security and the military? Do they think
these are important
issues/
Absolutely.
20-somethings are concerned about their future.
Most polls and research suggest they don't
believe SS will exist for them, but something
does need to exist. IN addition, SS will affect
20-somethings parents and so as time marches
on, that will become and increasing concern to
them.
zz-non says: Rich.
Clinton/Gore bulldozed roads and banned grazing
in many national forests. Now the undergrowth
is so tall and the dead wood so built up that
the fires are too hot to handle. But the 'evil'
ranchers aren't getting any of our federal
grass, right? When will they take responsiblity
for the fires too hot to put
out?
I haven't heard this
one yet, have you?
I
haven't heard their grazing policies blamed for
these fires. Fires burning uncontrollably is
part of nature and I don't know if one can
blame the President for
that.
jbr-guest says: To
follow up on Katia's question, should we
measuring our relative satisfaction with this
administration purely from a financial
standpoint? Shouldn't the moral fabric of a
society be in the mix as
well?
I think that's a
great question. I think one of the mistakes
that can be made is for Democrats to believe
that people are gauging the health of the
country simply be economic indicators. First
there's deep concern in the country about the
moral and social direction of the country.
Second, many of the economic indicators belie
larger trends in society about workers finding
it hard to find a good paying job, one with
good benefits and where they feel a sense of
job security.
tweety-guest
says: Rich, Many people have lost faith in Al
Gore, not because of Clinton but, I didn't know
taking money from Buddist monks was a
fundraiser, no controlling legal authority, I
invented the internet, I sponsored Love Canal
legislation 2 years before I was elected, its
Gore its not Clinton
The
VP has created a problem for himself, which
does indirectly attach him to the President. He
seems to have exaggerated the truth at times,
like with the Internet. And at other times used
legal jargon when plain spoken-ness was called
for. I think these things do make people feel a
bit uneasy about the VP and whether or not he
tends to overreach at
times.
guest-bills says: Is
it ethical that jounalist co mingle with
hollywood pro dems/dem on the set of west wing
such as tim r, claire, and howard. Seems
alittle to cozy to me
I
think people do have a problem with this, at
least perceived, coziness. I think most
Americans would feel less concerned about it if
they thought the media overall were doing a
better job at covering the news. But, with
limited coverage of campaigns and the
conventions, with hyped and sensationalized
news, people do wonder why news correspondents
are spending so much time with the people they
cover.
cranky-yankee-guest
says: Mr Russert, how do the Democrats get away
with saying they are the party of the "working
class dog" when they are such glitter and
money-mongers and why does the media allow this
fallacy?
Good question. I
believe most Americans wonder about that too,
that comes up in all of our research with
voters. The media, rather than covering the
issue seriously, tends to poke fun at the
political parties by inserting terms like "the
fat wallet Democrats" or "the big business
Republicans" when they're introducing a new
segment or signing off, which only makes people
like the news media less and trust them
less.
The
first African-American President and/or Woman
President will be a Republican because all the
African-American Democrats and Women Democrats
are ALL ONE-Issue candidates and therefore all
very unattractive to America, in
general!
Nixon was the
first to China. It's not unlikely that the
Republicans could be the first to nominate an
African American or woman presidential
candidate. Sometimes the people you least
expect it from have the greatest motivation to
do
something.
dk
they all need to be boot out this rich
politicans have the guts to say they created
this economy they should be voted out of office
but wait they can't be cause only just over 40%
of the american ppl vote so they will contiune
to feed their wallets an fund the surplus that
the american ppl built to spend it on their
pork belly spending projects rep an
democrats
At some point,
we Americans, individual citizens, have to take
responsibility for the politics we see. At some
point Americans are going to have to seek and
possibly demand the type of politics they want.
My advice to you is to gather as many of your
friends and neighbors and others to pay
attention to the election and then
vote.
tweety-guest says: Rich,
I believe people have finally realized with
Clinton that appointing competent subordinates
is very important, we have been very fortunate
concidering the "political" appointments
Clinton made, Reno, Ron Brown, Hazel O'Leary,
Josylynn Elders,
Richardson
That's usually
seen as G.W's strong
suit.
Well, many people
might disagree with you on the effectiveness of
Clinton's appointments, but it is clear and
clearer with each passing day, that it's
critical the President surround himself with
good advisors. I think that's something to look
at when comparing the candidates who are
running for President this
year.
Alaska-guest says: If a
person is not better off financially than they
were eight years ago, whose ultimate
responsibility is that? I believe all of us
have a responsibility to learn what it takes to
stay out of debt and plan for our retirements
without looking to someone else (like our
children) to do it for
us.
Do we expect too much
from the politicians?
Yes,
absolutely. I think too many of us as citizens
have become claimants on government and Iím
not just talking about people how receive
"government benefits" but all of us have become
claimants on government and need to look and
see what we need to contribute back as much as
what we should seek from
government.
duck-guest says:
It has been said that although he did not vote
for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas,
Lieberman indicated he would do so if his vote
was necessary. Since Mr. Thomas is demonized by
the Democrat Party, shouldn't this information
be made public?
I'm sure I
have seen that reported on and I'm sure it will
come out more as the campaign unfolds if it's
relevant.
Rich, what do you
think of the contradictions between Gore and
Liberman? does it fuel a diverse perspective or
create a stalemate?
I
think we're making way too much of the
differences between these guys. The fact is
that Gore, if he's President, will have the
final say on issues, it always works that way,
at least recently. Lieberman will have his
chance to air out what he thinks in private and
then like everyone else in an administration
would need to follow the lead of the President.
I don't think it's possible to find people who
will always be in agreement if you're looking
for the best people to
serve.
The
Democrats seems to think everyone wants to know
celebrities' political
stances?
Why.......often
they are the least
informed
Agreed. It just
goes to show how silly our society can be. I
happen to believe someone who labors all day in
a factory, on a garbage truck, in an office,
probably knows more about life in America than
a celebrity who faces so few of the other
dilemmas that other Americans face
daily.
zz-non says: Rich.. The
reform party debacle seems to be a microcosm of
the 'unintended consequences' of public
financing. What do you
think?
I think public
money in this particular case has created some
of this. But, I think this is more a product of
a young party not building the kind of
infrastructure it needs to move forward. It was
based too much on Perot and not enough on the
people who formed the party and made it work
over the years. At some point a party needs to
move beyond its original
leader.
Rich, in Philly we
did a lot of looking ahead and back and the
speeches made... I don't sense that same
anticipation here in LA... is it worth asking
what you expect from Caroline Kennedy
tonight?
How is this
convention different in how we should view
it?
Bush seemed to have a
much tighter control over message. This
convention, at least right now, still seems a
bit at sea. What I'm going to watch is whether
or not the pieces add up to some whole that
will present Al Gore as the candidate of this
party.
Rich, thanks very
much once again.
Thank you
and good night!
