10/30 Democratic Debate Review-----Hillary Thrown Under the Bus

Wow, what an interesting debate last night. If anyone watched the debate, you know exactly what single issue the entire 2 hour debate was about----Sen. Hillary Clinton. I know I talked about Barack Obama coming out and highlighting the differences between him and Clinton, and he did indeed do that...and more. I'll start with that issue first.

From the first question of the night, Obama "laid the smackdown" on Hillary Clinton. And for the most part, for his campaign, his policy attack's on Clinton were effective. I might not agree with Obama at all on policy issues, but I'm glad he at least laid the differences out on the table. The only problem I had with Obama's, and for that matter Edwards', performance was that they began to personally go after Clinton. At times, both men basically called Clinton a liar to her face and, in my opinion, there is no need for that. As Bill Richardson said, Hillary is no doubt a trustworthy, honest candidate. Richardson went on to say that although he disagrees with Clinton on many levels, he trusts her and he knows she is honest and would never question that. Quite frankly these personal attacks by Obama and Edwards are sickening to me. They started to act like Republicans by attacking Hillary on a personal level. And I'm not just saying that because I support Sen. Clinton. I feel all attacks on a candidate's integrity, honesty, and truthfulness are wrong except when an issue is explicitly obvious. There is no evidence what so ever to back up Obama and Edwards' claim that Clinton is a phony and a liar. She has stayed true to herself for years. But, none the less, Obama and Edwards still did themselves good by going after Clinton----I just wish they had done it in a more respectful way. We should leave nasty personal attacks to the GOP. I don't want our party to become corrupted with constant, unwarranted personal attacks.

Sen. Clinton too had a good night. I will say, because of her being taken on by Obama and Edwards, she was not the clear winner of the debate as she was of past ones. I must say that I, as many, was surprised and confused by Clinton's answer on immigration. I don't think she was double talking, as Edwards' claimed, but I'm not sure what her point was. Other than that moment, Clinton held her own. It can't be easy taking a constant barrage of attacks for 2 hours straight. Despite the attacks, Clinton stayed strong and presidential. I think Obama and Edwards were trying to "draw blood" and fluster Clinton. But they didn't succeed. Just as well as Obama and Edwards dished it out against Clinton, Clinton convincingly defended her positions. It was ironically Chris Dodd, who is one of the tiniest threats to Clinton, who appeared to have flustered Clinton. If Obama or Edwards were able to do that, I may have been able to declare one of them the winner. I also must note that Clinton still appears the most electable in these debates regarding the general election. I talked to some moderate Republicans today who watched the debate and came away saying, "She's actually not that bad." Her tough, yet diplomatic, stance on foreign policy is possibly her biggest asset in winning in 2008.

As far as the other candidates go, there is not much to say. Joe Biden certainly had the best line of the night when he talked about every sentence from Rudy Giuliani going, "noun, verb, 9/11." Biden has been consistently good in these debates and last night was no exception. Dodd and Richardson were kind of "just there". Kucinich definitely gave me a good laugh when he admitted to seeing a UFO. Other than that, there was nothing that special about the "2nd and 3rd tier" candidates.

I'll close by saying that there truly was no clear winner. Obama and Edwards can be seen as winners for finally making clear distinctions between them and Clinton. Clinton can be seen as the winner for so effectively rebutting those attacks. At the same time, Obama and Edwards can be seen as losers for stooping to the Republican's low of cheap, baseless, personal attacks. Clinton could be seen as a loser for not clearly articulating her position on the immigration issue. I will also say that I was disappointed in the moderating. I knew from the last debate that Russert wasn't going to be any good, but I expected better from Brian Williams. Well, thats my rap-up. I am excited to see how Obama and Edwards will capitalize after a good showing last night and if Clinton sees a dip in the poll numbers after the attacks against her.

I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on the debate, please comment below.

Debate Moderators Wanted

Last night's Democratic debate should be the last debate for Brian Williams and Tim Russert to moderators.  They are hopeless at asking questions of candidates that reflect what a candidate would do if elected and what their Presidency would look like.  We all know what the candidates positions are concerning Iraq and Iran yet their questions are a rerun of previous debates.

 

How do the candidates plan to reverse the eight years of record deficit spending when Bush leaves office?  How do they plan to restore the moral mantle of world leadership that our past presidents enjoyed? How do they plan to once again bring accountability to our leaders?  How do they plan to restore the basic rights of Americans that have been violated in the name of fighting terror?

 

The news was out before the debate that John Edwards and Barrack Obama were going to go after Senator Clinton and her positions.  Williams and Russert made sure that happened by asking the questions those candidates said they would raise.  Williams and Russert actually enjoyed asking those questions, but unfortunately, it did nothing to further educate the people who would like to hear how the candidates will deal with the many serious problems that will be left to the next president. 

 

Brian Williams and Tim Russert.  Both are poor excuses for moderators and demonstrated journalism at its worst last night. 

Republicans Talk Tough----But Is Anyone Listening?

But lets examine the facts anyway.  Ronald Reagan said soon after he was elected President and even during his campaign "Terrorist can run but they can't hide."  He continued his tough talk and then sent our marines to Beruit as peace keepers after Israel invaded Lebanon and the killing that followed.

 

Terrorists then truck bombed our marines compound while many were sleeping and killed 241 marines in the attack.  It was the same Reagan administration who sold arms to Iran for hostages after he told the American people he would never negotiate with terrorists.

 

George W. Bush also talked tough before and after his election concerning terrorism. Yet, the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened in the midst of his tough talk.  Despite Mr. Bush's tough talk he had no plan in effect prior to or on 9-11 to address the threat from Al Qaeda.  His failure to protect the country and its people was an embarrassment to Mr. Bush, so he laid the ground work for a war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist. 

 

Those are not the only terrorist attacks against Americans that occurred on Reagan and Bush's watch while they were trying to act tough.  But it was the worst because of the number of people killed.  Now the present Republican Presidential candidates who are seeking the nomination are trying to out talk each other on being tough on terrorist.

 

They are trying to talk tough on Iraq and are now going out of their way to act and talk tough about Iran.  Maybe the GOP thinks that tough talk scares the terrorists.  But it clearly does not. The fact is that more terror attacks have occurred.  The voters seem to like tough talk.  It worked for Reagan and Bush in their reelections.  But the tough talk did not make America safer and in fact increased American hatred around the world.  Al Qaeda in Iraq was no where to be found prior to our war and occupation in Iraq.

 

Other past Presidents faced more severe threats to our country and its people and handled those threats successfully with out the so called brag of talking tough.  They realized it would take more than tough talk to solve the problems.  Those who like to sound tough would have our country and men and women in uniform in an ongoing war far into the future.  The American people need to reject tough talk as a policy to deal with terrorists, or for that matter, anything, when they vote for the next president.

 

People would do well to remember that the leaders of Israel have been talking tough for over 40 years, yet they are still fighting terrorism or so they tell us.  That policy has also been a failure.  Our country needs a foreign policy based on understanding how to best deal with the problem with wisdom and character that best represents what America stands for.  The voters can keep electing the tough talkers, but what will that accomplish?