Democrat Debate

Remove all ads!

Did anyone watch this last night? My gut feeling is that no one really watched this, so whatever the canidates said will be ultimately irrelevant, because - well - no one listened.

I came away from the debate the most impressed with John Edwards, which is quite surprising, because he wasn't my first choice going in. Most especially his acknowledging the fact that if you want a universal health care system, well, that costs money, and the money has to come from somewhere, so the idea of not repealing Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans while still paying for it means you'd have to take money away from something else.

Supposedly Obama has a proposal that wouldn't require any tax increase, although I can't see how you can possible cover millions of Americans without that costing - well - billions of dollars annually - and that doesn't even take into account the initial start up fees which are also likely in the billions.

Overall, I think this is still Hillary's race to lose. Obama is running a solid second, and Edwards third. I don't think any of the other canidates are overly relevant. Biden, Ricahardson, Kucinich, Dodd, and that one guy from Alaska I've never heard of, did nothing to impress me. With the exception of the Alaskan guy, I already knew where most of them stood on the major issues, and they said little to change my pre-existing opinions of them. Of course, I never considered any of them to be serious contenders to begin with.

Assuming the nomination comes down to one of the big three (and anyone else winning would have to be considered a tremendous upset) who do you like the most among Clinton, Obama, and Edwards?

 

I agree re: chances of the various candidates.

Biden is a gaff machine, and Richardson (though I really like the guy) hasn't fared very well in TV appearances so far. Kucinich doesn't have a prayer, and the other guys are far too unknown to ever have a reasonable shot, unless they do something to really make themselves shine in the next 3-6 months.

As for now, my money is still on Obama. I still think Hillary bugs the living sh*t out of far too many people to end up getting the nomination, and in my experience, the more people hear Obama speak, the more they like him. The opposite is true of Hillary. Plus, he's a hell of a lot more consistant than she is, and her stubborn refusal to admit she made a mistake in endorsing the Iraq war is reminding me too much of Bush. The last thing we need is another President who can't own up to past screw-ups, from either party.

 

Right now, I'm hoping Obama wins the nomination.

I like Edwards but I don't think he has a chance at matching the overfunded and over-exposed Hillary Clinton (who has always struck me as conniving, expedient, two-faced and opportunistic).

Too, I am sick to death of "legacy politics". Since the late '80s, we have had, literally, a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Do we really want to perpetuate the Bush-Clinton cycle for another four to eight years!

This nonsense needs to stop! Obama in '08!

 

Some random observations

1. Edwards not being able to define "Rich" will come back to haunt him.

2. Hillary not answering the question about "diplomacy" and instead choosing to attack Bush, Condi, and Cheney may win her "laughing" points with the far left, but will not sit well with the people she needs to win the election if not the nomination.

3. I believe all of the candidates failed at the question about if they could have someone assassinated. It was a hard question, and I believe they would have sounded far more "Presidential" if they had been able to give a solid answer. Instead they kept trying to hedge their bets. It came across as weak.

4. I'm hoping that the big four change their mind about the Black caucus debate on Fox. In my mind it would be disgraceful for them to treat the Black caucus that way out of fear of the "Fox Channel". If they are afraid of Fox's moderator, it makes you wonder how they will do with our enemies.

 

Maybe we will get lucky and the Republicans will run a decent candidate. I can dream can't I?

At this point and time I really don't care which party wins if we can get a President who will keep his/her oath to up hold the Constitution, has some decent International Diplomacy abilities and really cares about all the people of the USA and the world...also doesn't think he/she has a mandate from heaven.

 

Actually, I would find decisiveness about such an issue far more frightening. When it comes to taking lives, I feel better knowing that my president isn't going to make the decision lightly or easily.

 

Did anyone else catch:

'As a New Yorker, we've been through this before.'

A good reply would have been:

'Please, Hillary, you were raised in Illinois and lived most of your adult life in Arkansas and Washington DC. You're a carpetbagger who doesn't know a thing about the people you represent except what the polls tell you.'

And today she brought up her husband's infidelities again -- she must be desperate to get a few points. This is such a cheap ploy on her part -- no wonder the nation is so polarized about her (me and Mrs Bruno are firmly in the anti camp).

I'm still for Obama (right behind McCain -- who really took it to Romney, by the way).

 

"Carpetbagger" is a southern term. You can't be a carpetbagger in New York.

 

from the Free Dictionary:

Using definition 2 she is a carpetbagger.

 

I stand corrected.

 

You know that those of us who speak some form of English love to extend and even change the meanings of words from the original meaning.

I was living in New York when she condescended to grace us with her wisdom.

Does that sound as if I don't care for MS. Clinton? You got it.

 

My Dad hates her with a passion - not for any of her positions necessarily, but because she's a "god damn carpetbagger."

Pop's old school.

 

I have to agree with what Drew said, but there are two other points to be made here:

1. Kucinich answered that he would not. Obama answered that he would. So it's not like none of the canidates took a stand.

2. The waffling began on the follow up question, which I will paraphrase as follows: "Would you take out bin Laden if you knew there would be innocent civilian casaulties in the attack?" I actually agreed with Hillary's statement there that it is impossible to answer such a vague hypotherical question. It's a much different decision if he's in a small camp where an attack may kill a handful of civilians. It's quite another thing if he is in, say a hospital, where the innocents number in the hundreds.

And that really is the problem with most hypothetical questions. You aren't given some of the ancillary information that any president would have access to in making such a decision. I would like to think that with the exception of Kucinich, the rest of the canidates would take out bin Laden if it could be done with minimal civilian casaulties. On the other hand, I don't think the canidates (except maybe Hillary) would agree to the attack if he was in a densely populated area.

 

We could say the same for the current governor of Florida.

 

WOW!! I didn't realize the Governor of Florida was in the Democratic debates!

 

That was not really a good attempt at deflection. Try framing your spin within a particular context - something like "all the following comments I'm about to make apply only to Democrats, since I hold Republicans to a different standard." Oh, and also throw in a comment on the "War on Terror." That will make the particular standard you are advocating seem OK.

The debates are really more important because of the particular issues that each of the candidates are advocating. Of course that hardly ever happens, but instead it's frivolous points that are magnified, like "which state someone was born in."

I don't agree with Newt Gingrich a lot on the issues. But at least he is a serious man with some serious ideas. This was his take on the Republican debate, and I like how he expands on the kind of dialogues brought into the larger question of Presidential debates:

I agree that the ways in which our debates are conducted are not really a serious method for getting at what the candidates are really about.

Of course they can always be very good at lying during a debate - like say, a certain prez, who commented during a debate with Al Gore, that he "would never send American troops into combat without a clear mission or an exit strategy."

 

That's because it was not an attempt at deflection -- the topic was the democratic debate, not a republican governor (or president for that matter). The constant anti-Bush rhetoric gets old.

I'm not advocating any point except keeping on topic.

Debates as Newt is advocating would certainly be interesting, but I do not believe they would be very informative.

[ June 06, 2007, 02:38: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

So does the anti-Clinton rhetoric. But really, my larger point was that debates such this - whether democratic or Republican - are not really very useful. Again, it seems that candidates can say whatever it takes to help get themselves elected - again whether they are dems or repubs - and then do the exact opposite, as we have seen in recent years. Again, I believe the issues themselves are more important, even more so than the particualr candidates.

 

BTW, is there a thread on Republican debates, or should this one be universalized?