Nevada Debate -- The Empire Strikes Back

The most notable part of last night’s Democratic debate was how slanted it was toward Hillary Clinton. Wolf Blitzer started out by asking her questions that helped her, then he asked negative questions of Obama and Edwards. He had no control and randomly chose who got to answer what, always making sure she got a shot. On driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, Hillary simply said she was against it – now a real moderator might have pointed out that this is a different position than she had last time, but not Wolf. The Clinton campaign leaked to the Drudge Report (Matt Drudge apparently is thrilled to carry Hillary’s water these days) how much they loved Blitzer. Then there was the audience – packed with Clinton supporters, they cheered her lines on cue and booed anyone who said anything bad about her or even disagreed with her by name. One Clinton thug actually yelled out something while Obama was speaking, as if trying to shout him down. Blitzer’s reaction? Nothing. No admonition to the audience at any point at all. Then, to wrap up a Presidential debate, Campbell Brown, having been pretty decent throughout the evening, earned her CNN cash by asking Hillary the fluffiest question possible, designed to mock those who question her waffling: “pearls or diamonds?” It was a pathetic exhibition by the former news giant.
In the debate itself, Hillary did well, I guess, if you like whining. You see, whenever anyone had the temerity to attack her, she immediately accused them of doing the Republicans job by “slinging mud” -- then she attacked back. The Wicked Witch of the East was in peak form, using every technique from the Karl Rove text. She didn’t plant any questions, although with Blitzer there, she didn’t have to.
I’m getting tired of these debates. The one last week had some merit, in that Matthews and Russert made some effort to pin people down and not coddle Hillary. But it’s getting harder and harder to watch them without wishing it was time to vote.
My ratings after this one:
1. Edwards: Fighting hard but the mainstream media has no desire to have him in the race, since two people are all they have time to cover
2. Dodd: Didn’t get to say much, still solid, but ultimately irrelevant.
3. Biden: Still knows his stuff, but still has no traction at all. He and Dodd are the guys who would be solid Presidents and have little to no chance.
4. Obama: Weak performance, bungled the driver’s license question. Seems to be seeking a middle ground politically which may end up hurting him because he seems to be taking the unpopular route on many issues. Personal story and charisma will have to overcome his unsteadiness.
5. Richardson: Not exciting, can’t see anyone voting for him in the long run.
6. Kucinich: Right on many things, wrong on others, at least he’s honest.
7. Clinton: The stench is rising and the question is whether it fills enough noses to defeat her before it’s too late. My guess is that it won’t, which will be a disaster for the party and the country.

Democrats Debate in Philly – Would You Buy a Used Car From This Woman?

This is a quick take, more depth to follow. For the first time the other candidates took on Hillary and kicked the living crap out of her. The only question is whether enough Democrats saw it to understand what a duplicitous piece of crap she really is. I called her Richard Nixon a few months ago and she was Nixon tonight, minus the flop sweat. It is time for the main stream media, which has fawned over her and anointed her as if she was anything other than the American Evita, to raise the real issues and treat her like the fraud she is.
Several of the candidates were surprising tonight and this is the order I would vote for them based on what I saw and their own histories:

1. Chris Dodd – A shame he’s not being taken seriously. Right on the war, right on the Iran vote, right on Hillary, and most importantly, right on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. He also has the guts to talk about decriminalizing marijuana.
2. John Edwards – Took it to HRC in a big way. Tough enough, smart enough, and for the first time, made himself look like he really belonged in the top tier.
3. Joe Biden – Still the smartest guy in the room, also the funniest. Went after HRC on her benighted Iran vote, complete grasp of every issue. Given the field, his poll numbers are sad.
4. Barack Obama – Formed a one-two punch against the wicked witch of the East and scored big. Still tends to wander a bit, strong on geopolitics, but the immigration issue is not strong for him or Edwards.
5. Bill Richardson – Strong on Iraq, doesn’t equivocate on most issues. He’s been a Governor, in case you didn’t know.
6. (tie) the Loon and the Liar – Kucinich is right on a lot of things, handled the UFO thing with humor, is in favor of impeaching the scum in the oval office. Still off the charts in too many ways.
The other L word was Hillary, who ducked and dodged and slipped and hopefully, fell. Her defense of her Iran vote was ludicrous and, as I said in my last post, either a lie or a serious ignorance of the middle east. And, as if to prove the point that everyone else made about her duplicity, she took a simple question about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and answered it at least two different ways. Anyone who trusts this woman is a fool.

Democrats Debate in NH -- Are Tides Shifting?

Last night’s Democratic candidates debate was yet another visit to the same topics, although Tim Russert’s questions were the sharpest and most focused they have faced and I give him credit for pushing for actual answers to the questions. There weren’t a lot of topics covered considering the length of it, but that wasn’t a bad thing, as we didn’t bounce around as much.
The early part of the debate was focused on Iraq, and some key positional differences are starting to emerge. The top tier of candidates seem reluctant to make absolute statements about pulling troops out completely. The big three refused to promise to have troops out by the end of 2009, or even 2013, the end of their presumptive first term (and if they don’t have troops out, their only term). Edwards seemed most aggressive on troop withdrawal, promising an immediate removal of half our forces, yet still saying a residual “non-combat” force might have to be left behind to protect our embassies and bases. Obama and Clinton were much less aggressive, talking about troops left behind to fight terrorism. This is troubling to me, as I believe our troops are part of the problem, The Clinton/Obama position was even more troubling, as it still does not focus the Iraqis on solving their problems and still leaves our forces at the mercy of events not in their control. We need to set a date when we will leave. Any other solution, any promise to bring in regional powers for negotiations, or any half-assed withdrawal, will not “end the war”. No matter how much Hillary promises to end the war, without the willingness to commit to an end date, it’s all Clintonian bullshit. Obama’s stance is not quite as disappointing, but still seems far too tilted toward the “realistic” school of Iraq policy.
Perhaps the most interesting moment of the Iraq portion came from Joe Biden, who is in favor of partitioning the country and for the first time said that if there was no political solution, he would pull all our troops out. To me, that is the most realistic position and one I would endorse, although I still feel a specific date is required.
This also marked the first time Biden started to criticize Hillary. On health care, Biden made the key point that getting health care legislation passed will require bringing people together and that the Republicans will never come together with Hillary (who also has little appeal to independents as well). Edwards pointed out the failures of Hillary’s first attempt at health care legislation and talked about how it was done in secret, with more input from industry types than from those affected by it. Edwards got the one big round of applause of the night when he repeated his promise that if Congress didn’t pass universal health care legislation in his first year in office, he would strip them of their health insurance. His last shot at Hillary, which also got applause, was to say “In 1993-94 we didn’t get universal health care, we got NAFTA.” All of these things show a willingness to take on both Hillary and the not-so-fantastic legacy she wants to revive. Linking her to the inept trade policy of her husband is a great idea. Reminding people of how divisive she is extremely important in the drive to save the party from her candidacy.
The essence of Hillary’s campaign was revealed in her answer to Russet’s question of what you would do to save the future of Social Security. While the other candidates addressed the issue, with full discussions of raising the amount of income on which Social Security taxes are paid, or raising the age of retirement, or discussing the actual numbers which lead to the purported insolvency, Hillary ducked the whole thing. Her position was that we have to establish fiscal responsibility before we can do anything about Social Security. She was called on this nonsense – a variation on Reagan’s solving budget problems by attacking “waste, fraud, and abuse” – by the other candidates but still refused to address the problems. The reasons are obvious: she was told by her pollsters that in the general election the one thing you can never be in favor of is raising people’s taxes. Hillary thinks she has the nomination and is carefully positioning herself for her headlong dash to the middle (where she belongs anyway). Look for more ducking and dodging in future months.
The winners in this debate were Edwards and Biden, who drew distinctions between themselves and the other candidates and drew blood from the front-runner. Obama seemed bland and listless and is simply not getting better at this. Hillary got beat up a bit, but whether her supporters care is the real question. The campaign has yet gain focus with the general public – it can’t happen too soon for the country’s future.

The You Tube Debate

This week featured the latest in an endless series of debates by an endless collection of Democratic candidates, although this was the first “official” one, as it was sanctioned by the party – like anyone cared. This was also special because the questions were asked by the public. Or at least that part of the public with the time, the wherewithal, and the interest in making a video for You Tube to pass CNN’s screening process and appear on a giant screen at the debate. CNN, in an orgasm of self-congratulations, proclaimed it revolutionary and historic. It was neither, although the videos were often amusing, sometimes poignant, and in one instance, just a little scary – the guy with the gun who referred to it as “my baby”, should be checked into immediately. They also made it easier to ask pointed questions which the candidates couldn’t duck completely, although Hillary did effectively dodge the “can’t we do better than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for 28 years?” question, even getting off a good joke of her own in response. I liked it, since the questioners seemed less self-conscious than the usually bunch of reporter types and more coherent than the nitwits who ask questions from the audience in town meeting style formats. It seemed to elicit good answers and a genuine spirit of liveliness that helped things move along. The only problem is that the most recent events couldn’t be dealt with, like the Gonzalez testimony and the Senate sleepover nonsense. Nothing is perfect, except John Edwards’ hair.
Speaking of Edwards hair, they also showed a series of You Tube ads put together by the campaigns. Some, like Chris Dodd’s, were wonderful, both funny and informative. Edwards used the musical background of Hair to show a series of quick issues and his positions, a wonderful contrast of the substance of his campaign with the news media’s ridiculous fascination with nonsense. Dennis Kucinich had the worst ad, in which he told people they could end the war by sending a text message to Congress – seriously. What planet does he live on?
All in all, most of the candidates have gotten better at the process, somewhat ameliorating Hillary’s big debate advantage. Edwards, in particular, seemed a much more commanding presence on stage, which is something he needed badly. Still, the crowd of candidates makes real dialogue next to impossible. Every time Joe Biden proclaims that he is the only candidate who really understands Iraq and that he is the only candidate with an actual plan to get us out of there, I just want to scream. Why can’t Edwards just follow that up by saying that having a plan (three states) with virtually no support within Iraq is fairly useless and then ask Biden what he would do if this plan he wishes to impose from outside is rejected by the Iraqis? Just once I’d like to see Mr. Expert-on-everything have to answer a tough question. I know the media has no interest in cutting him off, since they see no point in it, irrelevant as he is, but it would be illuminative. Without the threat of our leaving at a specific point, nothing will get done there. Kudos to Chris Dodd for coming around to the “we have to set a date certain” position. Of course, Edwards wants us to get out in six months, Kucinich in six days, and Gravel wants us to get out in 1966 – but I’m tired of the “realistic” positions on this issue and we need to see this brought out.
The big realism moment actually seems to have had a life beyond the debate itself. That was when the candidates were asked if they would meet personally with the leaders of N. Korea, Iran, etc., unlike Bush. Obama said he would, but Hillary said she would be willing to, but only after the groundwork had been laid and we knew what would be discussed, that doing otherwise would be giving them a public relations boon and gaining us nothing. I think she was right, but apparently much of the public disagreed. Obama has seized on the focus group reaction to attack the Clinton position, actually comparing her to Bush and Cheney on this. While I’m all in favor of confronting Hillary, this seems like a weird issue to choose. It may signal a change in the nature of the campaign and bears watching on that level.
Other highlights and lowlights: when Obama was asked whether he was black enough, he actually was quick enough to give the same answer I would have (which always impresses me, of course), to the effect that he still would have trouble catching a cab in Manhattan. He also was very good when someone asked if the candidates would be willing to work for minimum wage if elected. Obama said “we can work for minimum wage, we have money – not Mitt Romney money, but enough.” Obama also had the best bumper sticker line – “The world is not the world as it has to be.”
The candidates were asked to tell one thing they liked and one thing they disliked about the candidate to their left. None would say something they didn’t like (except for Edwards having a problem with Hillary’s jacket), but Joe Biden really liked Dennis Kucinich’s wife. When Kucinich pointed out he had no one to his left, Anderson Cooper commented that “we couldn’t find anyone to your left.”
The lowpoints involved Kucinich’s call for reparations for slavery – seriously, he said that. There was a question asked about whether there was a Republican they could run with as their VP. Joe Biden jumped right in and said Chuck Hagel. Edwards sort of said Hagel was okay, then went on to talk about other stuff. Not one person pointed out the ridiculous nature of Biden’s answer. Hagel, is anti-abortion, anti gay right, in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy – in fact, except for Iraq, he is a perfect conservative. The correct answer is that if you can show me a Republican who is pro-choice. pro gay rights, pro stem cell research, against the war in Iraq, in favor of a fair tax system, and pro worker’s rights, I might consider him or her – but that’s what makes them Republicans and us Democrats and the people need to remember that on election day.

PBS Democratic Debate -- I Agree With What He Said

It was billed as the All-American Presidential Forum, perhaps in attempt to lure sports fans, but really it was the Urban Affairs debate, held at Howard University in front of mostly African-Americans, hosted by Tavis Smiley, with all the questioners being non-white. In other words, home turf for Dems, discussing issues which will not decide the election. The questions were interesting, thoughtful, and for the most part, ignored, as most of the candidates translated the specific question into “this is about education/crime/health care” and gave their prepared answer.
Obama and Edwards are very lucky that very few people are watching these debates. They have no chance at drawing distinctions between themselves and Hillary, as Kucinich and Gravel attack everyone equally, and Clinton and Biden sound so well prepared and authoritative on every issue, that Obama and Edwards seem out of their depth. All of them are getting better at this (except for Richardson) and the time that is wasted on Gravel’s senescent ramblings gets more and more annoying. Although there was a point last night hen I thought Dodd was actually going to smack him down, which would have been wonderful.
This was on really solid turf for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, yet the format didn’t give them a chance to really discuss anything. Obama was able to talk to the audience in a different way than the others, and frankly, may be the single best thing about his candidacy. When discussing the shocking HIV/AIDS statistics in the African-American community, he alone was able to talk about the need for the community to take more responsibility.
Hillary may be the best “short-form” debater ever (to coin a term). Give her a minute, she will make her points in a minute, coherently and effectively, give her 30 seconds, she’ll do it in 30 seconds. Unlike virtually every other candidate, she answered the actual questions that were asked, rather than just shifting to her prepared boilerplate. She is a very impressive woman and this was really solid turf for her.
No candidate is hurt more by the two left-wing idealogues than Edwards. In earlier debates, he wanted to draw distinctions between himself and the others on the war and Kucinich and Gravel lumped them all together again. He wants to talk about his superior health care proposals and Kucinich attacks him with the others because he doesn’t immediately knock the insurance companies out of the system. Life is easier when all you do is spout ideology, unfettered by the actual need to either win or accomplish anything. Kucninch and Gravel have the Naderite position in this game – and they get 25% of the time to hurt Edwards, effectively help Hillary, and, like Nader in the past (and maybe future) help the Republicans stay in power.
Just a word on Blabbermouth Bill Richardson – shut up. Okay, that’s two words, but man, is he annoying. And unless he’s spent an awful lot of time in the sun the last month, he was wearing makeup dark enough to be used in a road company of Othello. It looked like he was trying to emphasize his non-white half in this gathering. He reiterated his willingness to boycott the Olympics, saying, pompously, “I happen to think preventing genocide is more important than sports.” Next time he says something like that, someone should ask him if it’s more important than China having most favored nation trade status. Then when he hems and haws over that, they can tell him to just shut up.
Mostly, everyone in the debate agreed with everyone else. The next version of this will be with Republicans, and that could actually be interesting.