Camille Abate Interview Is Live!

Listen to Camille Abate's Interview on Your Own Site.......Please (1.00 / 2)

....Then listen to the interview that Tex did with Steve Rothman on your own site. 

Rothman is a seasoned incumbent veteran; who is heads and shoulders more informed and articulate than Paul Aronsohn.  (Based on conversations I've had with both of them.)

Then go back and listen to Camille give her first real extensive interview at an early point in her first major campaign.

:-)

I rest my case.

Thank You!!!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 19:39:06 PM UTC

Re: (0.00 / 0)

Well, a couple of people jumped on you, but that's up to them.  All I want to say is that I have no idea what point you are trying to make in the comparison between Rothman and Abate.  I am interested.  I'd like to see you complete a diary entry - Hell, I'd probably promote it if it was anything close to well-written.

To address DBK's remark: I don't mind being called Tex.  I spent six years answering to that name in the Navy.  I've lived the kind of life most people probably think of when they hear someone called "Tex" - rural, worked on farms and ranches, family works as roughnecks in the oil bid'nez, etc.  I love Texas.  If it develops an economy, I might consider moving back.  For now, Jersey's my home and I love it here, too - though I find lots to bitch about.  That just means I'm happy.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 22:28:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the Feedback/Suggestion (1.00 / 2)

I hadn't realized that it was possible for anyone to try to start one of these threads.  I clicked on the "New Diary" link and now I understand a bit more about how it works.  I have lots to learn. 

As for what I was getting at in re bringing up the Rothman interview...

My point was to ask that people who listen to Camilles interview ALSO listen to Rothmans (at that point Paul hadn't agreed to one) so that they could contrast how this "beginner" sounded in comparison to a seasoned sharp smart political veteran like Steve Rothman. 

Obviously, I think she comes out sounding pretty damn good....but I didn't want anyone to take my word for it; my intention was to challenge/encourage folks to take the time to actually listen to *both* and to contrast the two.

I'm telling you Tex, (and I use that moniker with wry and appropriate affection) I honestly believe that Camille Abate has what it takes to be a star in Congress.

I am convinced that she can/will be a spark plug (in a Demodratic majority) that can/will ignite/challenge the party to become truly Representative of the grass roots Americans that BOTH partys have ignored and betrayed imho.

That's why I'm advocating for her here so strenuously. It's not a personal thing (although I have come to like and admire Camille as a person and hope to be her friend whatever happens in this race).

I assure you, I'm very far from the type who joins personality cults.  Such cults are a threat to all that is good and decent (Bushism is one example)...but that's another topic for another day.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 16:33:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the explanation.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 16:57:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

correction (3.00 / 1)

Paul agreed to do a podcast when I spoke with him a few months ago, which was before the Rothman interview. I don't know where you got the idea that that wasn't the case. The date for the interview wasn't set until recently.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 17:24:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not for nothing (0.00 / 0)

but you have spark plugs in congress already.

bernie sanders is an unapologetic socialist.

Dennis Kucinich, charles rangel, etc. etc.
the list goes on and on.

now if you want to talk about the democratic leadership needing a spark plug, you would be right on.

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 18:58:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed... (0.00 / 0)

...as far as you go.

I submit to you that the added voltage of a Camille Abate victory against all odds would have an astounding kind of multiplier effect.

Imagine a candidate running in a fixed/gerrymandered Republican district against an entrenched neanderthal like Scott Garrett actually WINNING by running an authentic charismatic campaign that actually got the general public to pay attention!  A campaign that got many many thousands of new people to register!  A campaign that raised the turnouts to record highs!

Such a victory would set a tone, set an example for the whole nation and just might set an example for how Democrats SHOULD be running in 2008!

Right now, the Dems you mention are being effectively ignored by the way the Republicans have undemocratically abused their majority status.  A timeline/reality in which Camile Abate wins her seat is one in which we Democrats take back the House.

All I ask is that you join with me in calling for a freewheeling public debate between Camille and Paul in which both of these professional communicators can state their cases and both answer unscreened questions from a live audience and from each other.

Is that in any way unreasonable?

BTW  Here's an interesting piece that, I believe, buttresses my points.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1181593,00.html

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 21:32:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh boy (0.00 / 0)

Ideally yes. It would be a wonderful day when a Republican district gets overthrown by an upset grassroots candidate like Camille.

I for one don't give a rats ass about a debate. Let them have it. I will join you in calling for the debate. Whatever that is worth, I don't live in the 5th.

However, don't float your hopes up so high. Look at Paul Hackett, par example.

He had the entire national netroots behind him and you can argue that he had 500% better shot at winning when compared to Camille. He was a veteran, had all that support, and still lost. There is a long list of these kinds of candidates that the grassroots have supported but that in the end Republicans still stuck by their team.

To win in a solidly gerrymandered red district you have to have more than a cantakerous mouth and sound like a lefty. Realize that politics is not as simple as speaking your mind. To win over hearts and minds yes, you have speak frankly, but at the same time you can't satisfy everyone but somehow have to talk in a way that you can satisfy everyone.

This is political reality. We have to deal with it. That doesn't mean that Camille is a bad person or that she wouldn't be better for the job. It just means that in some districts you have to be more moderate in your speach and more pragmatic in your policies in order to win over that district.

So there are good reasons for Camille's candidacy taking the form it is taking. And there are equally good reasons for Aronsohn's campaign being what it is.

Just realize that.

And realize that on this site people that believe either style can win in the 5th. In the end, when all is said and done, we will still wring our hands about it all.

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 23:52:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Real Campaign (0.00 / 0)

Nick,

I hope you are out every afternoon knocking on doors and every evening making phone calls.  While I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next person on Blue Jersey, the voters are out there.  When its all said and done you'll be lucky if half of 1% of the voters in the 5th CD Democratic Primary read any of these forums.  I have a lot of respect for both candidates in this primary, and I agree that the more information the voters have the better... but the real campaign is out on the streets not on Blue Jersey.  Time will quickly run down and election day will hit like a brick wall.  Take the great rallying call for Abate for Congress to the registered "D"'s in the 5th CD who have voted in at least 2 of the last 4 elections (general and primary).  Those are the people who need to hear this stuff for the 1st time.

Cheers,

-- Mitch
ManzellaNews.com

---

by: mitch @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 09:23:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

btw (0.00 / 0)

DBK, you tried to throw her a few courteous curves there; but that bit of hardball helped raise her game!

Thanks DBK for a good job!

Now, let's see if you can get Aronsohn to do a similar freewheeling interview with no pre screened questions, conditions, or limitations.

Better yet, let's see if we can get these two to spend a couple of hours interviewing each other! 

:-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 20:16:16 PM UTC

Aronsohn interview (0.00 / 0)

Aronsohn has already agreed to an interview. We'll treat him the same we've treated every other guest. Nobody gets questions in advance (if it makes sense we sometimes let them know which general topics we'd like to discuss), and your insinuation that we would allow anyone to impose any kind of conditions or limitations (other than reasonable ones like time constraints) is insulting. It's a waste of our time and everyone else's time to conduct an interview in that manner.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 20:39:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look, we get it (0.00 / 0)

Look, we get it.  You would drink Camille's bathwater.  You really don't have to try to hijack every thread.  All you've succeeded in doing, really, is show that you don't get it and you love to pick fights.  It isn't endearing or helpful and I don't think you're accomplishing what you think you're accomplishing.

We understand.  Really, we do.  You don't get it, you won't get it, you refuse to get it, and you worship the ground Camille Abate walks on.  Oh, and you don't like Xpat, so you call him "Tex" because you think that is demeaning and shows everyone how you are.

As for the interview, I want to let her remarks speak for themselves.  I will say this:  I didn't see it the way you do at all.  On the other hand, I think the people who come to this site, more than many other sites, are sophisticated enough to work out what they are hearing for themselves.

I think it is amazing that you would say I "tried to throw her a few courteous curves".  If asking a follow-up question is "throwing a curveball", well, you just don't seem to know what you're talking about.  Must every little thing be characterized with some tortured characterization?

Let me put it this way.  Ms Abate was the one who brought in the mil-speak with her remarks about a "strategic withdrawal".  I am no military expert, but neither is she, nor does she have any military training.  So when she started with that, talking about what Congressman Murtha proposed, I asked her a follow-up because I could see she didn't really know what Murtha, who does know more than a thing or two about military matters, was saying.  I considered my responsibility to be to whoever would listen to the podcast later, not to her or me.  Consequently, while my main goal was to inform listeners about Camille Abate, I also felt it was important to not misinform them about facts, or to let Ms Abate do that.  In this case, she didn't seem very familiar with Congressman Murtha's position even though she referred to his position, so I went in after it and explained his position.  Was clarifying the facts a "curveball"?  I don't think I am going to get anyone out with those kinds of "curveballs", since I was really just pitching things straight.

Ms Abate spoke at some length about Iran and how it is a non-threat to the US.  I again followed up because her answer ignored the real threats that a powerful Iran represents.  In fact, I think she was way off-base there, because it isn't so much that a nuclear Iran could hit the US with a missile that makes the current administration's position reckless and wrong, but that Iran hasn't come close to doing what is required to become nuclear.  However, Iran does represent a distinct threat to US interests in several ways.  Even so, I didn't go into that as much as I could have because this was about Camille Abate and not about me.  So, was pointing out that there really is a threat represented by Iran a "curveball"?  Again, I don't see the twist in that, but I am not looking at the world through Camille-colored glasses.

I don't think you understand what an interview is about, Nick.  When you interview someone, it isn't all about giving that someone the chance to say anything they want and you just smile and nod.  Sometimes you ask a follow-up question so you can explore their views a little more, maybe get at something that the interviewee was ignoring or misrepresenting, just go a little deeper.  To call that "throwing a curveball" strikes me as a pretty shallow view.  I laughed when you referred to what I did as "courteous".  I gave Ms Abate no more courtesy than I would give anyone else in those circumstances, and no less, either.  It was a pleasant conversation and I am glad I had the chance to talk to her and to hear her speech before the interview.

"Courteous curveballs".  Heh.  I'd love to hear you doing an interview.  From the way you find my "courtesy" so remarkable, you sound like someone who would deliberately insult your interviewee.  That would get you exactly one interview in a lifetime.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 20:55:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Methinks thou doth protest too much." (0.00 / 0)

I see you don't take compliments well,  LOL

No need to be so defensive.  When you do something I actually disapprove of I'll say it straight out.

BTW, I don't think Camille is perfect, far far far from it.

As I've said often here.  She is a newbie at this. I see her making what I perceive as mistakes all the time.  (Hell, I see myself making mistakes all the time too!;-)

Your interview was her first of this kind in this first run for a major office on very short notice. She's a fallible human being just like the rest of us...I just happen to think she can kick Garretts ass out of his House seat!

It would set a great example for the rest of the country in the 2008 elections.  Don't you think??? 

Imagine: "Plainspoken unreconstructed straight talking Lady Dem kicks entrenched incumbent Republican out of gerrymandered district."  If that scenario isn't music to your ears; then you aren't very much of a Democrat.

Nor do I believe I am perfect, if I've hurt your feelings or bruised anyone's ego in my advocacy on Ms Abate's behalf, I'm sorry.

I happen to believe that the ONLY way we will EVER get to the bottom of the actual CRIMES this administration may have committed is to take back the House and start the kinds of investigations John Conyers is proposing. Camille has stated she would support HR 635 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/13/20289/0625

Aronsohn used weaselwords in his BGR forum statement on that subject; if he doesn't change his mind on supporting Conyers then please get him to give a detailed rationale when you interview him.  Thanks.

I truly believe that getting an Abate in Congress vs a Garrett will, over the years, truly make life and death differences to/for many many indivdual human beings in and out of this country.  Compared to that...your emotional sensitivities (and/or mine!) are relatively insignificant.

The comparison I proposed with XPatriated Texan's interview with Rothman I think will be a good one until we see what Aronsohn has to say.

And as for "hijacking the thread"...I'm tempted to say something not nice.  You think about how silly that assertion is for yourself. 

Y'all are free to ignore me, to overwhelm me with both quantity and quality.  Go for it!  If you truly think my posts are so offensive; then block me altogether!  It's your "printing press".  On the other hand, has it occurred to you that a real debate/discussion just might be interesting for people to read and/or take part in?  That it might generate more traffic for the site?

Anyway, Don't worry, be happy!  Life is too short...

  Ciao fer Now!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 22:53:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A finer point (0.00 / 0)

It's your "printing press".

Yes and no.  This site is open for any to use, so long as they remain relatively respectful of everyone involved (after all, this is politics - and feelings are bound to get hurt).

However, this is YOUR site, too.  I'd much rather have seen you write diaries that could be promoted than comments that ramble for half of eternity.  You obviously have a lot to say - so say it.

Yeah, you'll get attacked from all directions.  That's democracy, bud.  You learn to deal with it.  I did.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 23:14:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again (0.00 / 0)

You use many words but you don't listen at all and you didn't understand anything I wrote.  Time to stop trying to teach that pig to whistle.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 00:29:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll let it go by... (0.00 / 0)

Implicitly calling me a "pig" is not, I suspect, one of your finer moments.  LOL  I'm sure you can do much better; hell, I know you can.

In any event, I am not at all insulted as I understand your frustration.  I forgive you.

I've felt that way many times myself when dealing with someone I perceive as being a thickheaded arse.    Thank God perceptions aren't always reality. Eh?

When you feel like resuming the discussion/debate, I'll be around...no hard feelings.

And DB "I ain't just whistling Dixie" when I say...

Be well!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 19:47:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My input (0.00 / 0)

I think Dean is probably a more agressive interviewer than I am.  Different styles work different ways.  Luck of the draw, I suppose.

I think it is a mistake for Abate to speak about defense.  She's out of her league and it shows.  No big deal - everyone can't be an expert on everything.  Still, with national security being a big issue, this might not be a good time to run with that particular weakness.

A purely nit-picking point: She claims "we didn't have any help in our Revolution" or something to that effect.  That's a HUGE mistatement.  We had France and Spain giving us munitions and gold and we had took volunteers from all over Europe.  Our representatives actively lobbied for European powers to blockade England.

It's a small point and 200 years old and nothing that indicates anyone should or should not vote for her.  It's a personal pet peeve.  I heard Conservatives in Texas spout that "we did it all on our own" crap for too many years to let it be passed along freely, though.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 22:53:23 PM UTC

Not a Nit at All... (0.00 / 0)

I missed that point...will have to listen again.

Without a "little help from our friends" our Revolution would surely have failed or taken much more blood and time.

That's why I think the idea of doing all we intelligently/effectively can to bring freedom/democracy/human rights to the rest of the world (and deepen it here at home) would be a great foundation for our foreign policy; perhaps we'll try it sometime!!! 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 23:05:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RE (0.00 / 0)

It's in the part where she is talking about civil war in Iraq (I believe - Iraq and Iran need new names). 

There's a point in what she's saying - we actively went out and found people to help us in our fight and that isn't necessarily true in Iraq (or Iran, for that matter).  It's the sort of mis-step that tends to get blown way out of proportion and loses credibility for someone who is probably speaking a little faster than they are thinking that day.

I'll say this: I do agree with most of what she says.  Especially in civil rights, she makes a convincing and passionate case.  However, I think the tone of her campaign hides her intelligence and turns it into a circus.  If she scaled the rhetoric back a little, it would come off a lot more welcoming.  You're going to need a warm and welcoming message to get people into the fold in the 5th.

My problem with Abate remains the same: She attacks Aronsohn in an underhanded and divisive manner challenging him to make detailed policy statements.  Meanwhile, she has no detailed policy statements. 

In short, I think she has the right idea on many issues, but she doesn't seem to know why she has them.  That's going to open her up for being "just against Bush and not for anything".  Don't expect that to pick up many seats - even this year when it has a better chance than most.

XT

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 23:20:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And, not for nothing ... (0.00 / 0)

It was the French fleet that won at Yorktown.  American troops were late to the game.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 23:38:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please be accurate when discussing the interview (0.00 / 0)

Ahem... if you listened to the interview closely, you will realize that I did not refer to the Revolutionary War, I referred to the Civil War, in making a comparison to Iraq's civil war.  To the best of my knowledge, despite the South's attempt to court Europe's help, they basically stayed out of it.  Certainly no troops were sent over.

So say what you will, but please don't mischaracterize me.

Common Sense for the Common Good

---

by: Camille @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:43:07 AM UTC

My apologies (0.00 / 0)

I listened to the podcast again and realized I had erred.  Thanks for the correction.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:31:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I dunno, that sounds kinda Republican to me (0.00 / 0)

Go off on a long rant that accusing someone of saying something he/she didn't say, then offer a much shorter apology when proven wrong.

We all know, XPat, that for whatever reason, you think Camille is a lousy candidate, and quite possibly a bad person.  But there's no reason to resort to this.

Camille is as much a newbie to this process as Patty Murray was at one point, or Carolyn McCarthy was.  Those candidates won, and so can she.

I don't have any doubts about Aronsohn's liberal credentials; nor do I think he's some kind of Republican mole.  I just don't see anything there that makes me think he's going to be up there fighting the entrenched power structure.  You have to keep whacking at it until it crumbles; you can't just sit back and tap it with a fingertip and hope that a stiff wind blows it down. 

Obviously I want Camille to win this primary, but if her guts and her courage and her understanding of how our rights are being eroded by Republican policies and the Washington Democrats' refusal to fight for the Constitution end up as part of the campaign and eventual tactics of the nominee, no matter WHICH of the two candidates that is, I'll be happy.  I just refuse to reward any more oh-please-Mr.-Republican-I'll-be-good-just-don't-hurt-me Democrats with my vote.

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 14:05:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

37 more words please (0.00 / 0)

52 words:

A purely nit-picking point: She claims "we didn't have any help in our Revolution" or something to that effect.  That's a HUGE mistatement.  We had France and Spain giving us munitions and gold and we had took volunteers from all over Europe.  Our representatives actively lobbied for European powers to blockade England.

15 words:

I listened to the podcast again and realized I had erred.  Thanks for the correction.

You still owe us another 37 words. Until then, your apology means nothing.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 14:10:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

Sooooooooooorrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Is that too Republican? 

I guess it's true.  Size DOES matter.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 14:13:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yayyyyyyy (0.00 / 0)

I get to respond to a second apology!  LOL

Seriously, Xpat...ya gotta admit that this Camille Abate is one sharp lady, eh?

(And yes, she is not (YET) an expert on all the details of military matters.)

It is my hope that good Democrats like you who have experience in/with the military would be pleased to give Abate constructivice advice and counsel in that area should she become the winner of this primary.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 16:06:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

As you can tell, I'm not shy about giving advice.  It's here out in the open for anyone to see.  I even answer email.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 16:56:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brilliant 99.7% of the Time... (0.00 / 0)

...but we mildly disagree on this. 

We all make mistakes.  I was going to re listen to the interview this morning, as it turns out, I don't have to! 

Xpat humbly acknowledged an error and graciously apologized.  That was classy, and all too rare in the realm of political discussions.

Let's not pile on. Xpat isn't our opposition in this primary...Paul Aronsohn is.

All this simply reinforces everything I have been saying about Camille.  She is as sharp as Garrett/Bush is DULL.

There is no doubt that Camille can handily defeat Scott Garrett; IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.

In a general election Garrett will not be able to get away with the tactic of trying to "ignore the existence of your opponent" that Paul Aronsohn is, evidently, using.

Jill, what strikes me as absolutely hilarious (I'd rather laugh than cry) is that some on this site of political "sophisticates" perceive the idea of a contested primary in which supporters of the challenger want to see the candidates engage in a positive debate as being, somehow, an "attack"!!! 

That "take" is the kind of spin I would have expected from a Scott McClellan...not my fellow Democrats.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 15:57:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sophisticates? (0.00 / 0)

we are letting both sides air out whatever the hell they want on this site, unabashed, unedited, raw.

nobody is against a primary challenge, though some of us think that primaries don't have to be blood baths of political bomb throwing. there are other ways of generating contrast between candidates without dropping verbal payloads on each other.

There is a level of civility that can be maintained while still trying to win.

It is that simple. Nobody on this site is in any one of these camps. NONE. We aren't the media elites of the NJ blogosphere, but perhaps we are striving for that.

Either way, with all the raw commentary that happens on this site it is hard to call the people who are trying to keep it civilized and intelligent "sophisticates."

Plus bashing anyone who dissagrees with you is a tactic that in fact IS used by Bush co etc. It is a way of quelching dissent.

And this site due to its extreme liberal tilt will have no part in quelching dissent.


Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 19:31:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]