ABC's Republican and Democratic Debates

The back to back Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire demonstrated to the American people that their choice for the next president really does matter.  The Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, would continue the same policies of George Bush and are still quoting Ronald Reagan nonstop.  Rudy Giuliani still talks about a reduced government role like Reagan, but he is clearly not in command of the facts.  As George Will wrote a long time ago, the federal government grew and spending increased on Reagan's watch. 

 

As far as Republicans go, I thought Romney won the debate based on his answers to the questions.  People were able to understand what he was saying.  On the issue of healthcare, he knows more about the subject than his Republican opponents and explains it well.  I thought it odd that there were two questions that brought a good response but McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani were almost silent.  In fact, those three seemed to be detached at times.  The other Republicans are lost when Ron Paul talks about the fiscal disaster the Bush administration has put our country in.  They can't answer him because they bought into this fiscal disaster.

 

The Democrats debated issues that are more related to the problems facing the people.  Good thing Obama has his stump speech down pat on the campaign trail, because his answers in the debates are usually incoherent, off the mark, fragmented, and rarely, if ever, answer the question asked with any substance.  

 

John Edwards would get my vote for winning the first half of the debate, and Hillary Clinton for winning the second half.  Both of them gave answers to the questions that were good and could be understood.  Hillary was a little late getting started but she finished strong and well.  Obama talks about change, but he has yet to articulate how or what he would change.  Edwards and Clinton have done a much better job in that regard.

 

Richardson is a capable candidate, but lacks the ability to stay focused on the questions and the issues and therefore his answers are not easily absorbed.  He loses his chain of thought.  The biggest void in the debate was the absence of Biden and Dodd.  They are two people who know the issues and who can articulate what they would do if elected president.  A 20% turn out in the Iowa caucus eliminated them from the campaign.  Their valuable thoughts will be missed.

 

Edwards was the most inspired I thought and Hillary was able to make her point that you can't make change simply by talking about it.  I think the best thing that could come from the New Hampshire vote is a close race with no real winner.  That would bring out the best in the remaining candidates because they would all be forced to articulate their positions more sharply and then the people would really be able to make a decision based on some thing concrete rather than a stump speech.  Besides it would balance the sides because Obama is the darling of the news media and is getting all the positive attention.

 

It requires winning over 2000 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, so we have a long way to go.  I can not agree that a quick knock out in either party serves the American people well.  If a quick knock out occurs, then the issues will lay dormant.  That is not good for America.  We have seen that happen in the past.

11/15 Debate: Hillary "Turns up the Heat"

I just finished watching tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN and I must say I was very impressed with Sen. Clinton. I commented after the last debate in Philly that there was no clear winner. Well tonight, there was definitely a clear winner. Like her or not, Sen. Hillary Clinton won the debate hands down.

What is interesting to note is that most of the sparks in the debate took place in the first 15 minutes or so. Right from the start, Obama and Edwards went after Clinton, but unlike previous debates, Clinton responded. Clinton's forceful responses were spot on and she super-effectively made the case that she is the most qualified candidate to be President. I also find it interesting that after Clinton responded to her attackers, both Edwards and Obama left her alone for the remainder of the debate; she essentially shut them up.

Clinton's best response came when she was asked about playing "the gender card". Clinton correctly responded by saying that her opponents were not ganging up on her because she was is a woman, but rather because she is ahead. Another fact that will play to Clinton's favor is that she answered every question directly. No one can accuse her of parsing her answers or trying to get around the question. If anything, Obama had problems answering the questions directly; he himself got tripped up on the immigration question that Hillary messed up on in the last debate.

In the past few weeks, Obama has really grown as a candidate. He got a huge boost coming out of the last debate, but he completely failed to capitalize on that momentum tonight. Obama completely lost tonight. He indeed had one of his worst debate performances.

It would not surprise me if Hillary regains her strength and Obama loses his. Tonight was a complete win for the Clinton campaign and really a huge loss for everyone else involved. You could tell this by the crowd reaction. At the start of the debate, the audience was evenly split between Hillary, Edwards, and Obama. By the end of the night, the crowd loudly booed anything Obama or Edwards said negatively about Clinton. Clinton had managed to win over about 90% of the Las Vegas audience by the end of the night. And possibly the most important thing of all, Clinton looked the most presidential and she succeeded in presenting herself as the strongest, toughest, and most experienced candidate in the race.

As many of you know, I typically rank the candidates in the order in which I think they scored, but tonight there is simply no need for that. Sen. Clinton is the solid #1 winner. There is no reason to rank anyone else, because frankly, Clinton was in a totally different league then everyone else tonight.

With that being said, if you saw the debate and have any thoughts, please share them. I want to know what you think.

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.

All Eyes on Philly

With the January presidential caucuses and primaries growing closer and closer, all eyes will be tuned in for tomorrow's Democratic debate on NBC. The debate will emanate from Philadelphia and Brian Williams (w/ Tim Russert) will moderate. All the Democratic contenders, with the exception of Mike Gravel, will be there and we all know who the bull's eye will be on-----Hillary Clinton.

The big story of the night will be, as I mentioned, the way in which Hillary is targeted. There is a sense of franticness among the other Democrats' campaigns. Everyone else in the race realizes that Clinton, despite their attacks against her, is not only staying a strong candidate, but is becoming even more popular. There was one mistake, in my opinion, that one candidate made leading up to this crucial debate.

Right there, on the front page of the New York Times is Sen. Obama talking about how he is going to go after Clinton at the debate tomorrow. He doesn't just stop there either. He proceeds to tell the world, obviously including the Clinton campaign, what issues he is going to attack her on. I can assure you that Hillary will have all those issues, and more, ready to answer for now. If Obama would have kept his mouth shut, he could have potentially surprised her on a number of issues. This is just another example of the inexperience of Obama. Obama needs to realize he is fighting a war against Clinton for the nomination, and in a war, you don't tell your enemy how you're going to attack them days before the actual battle.

There is another thing that the candidates have to be careful about when they inevitably go after Clinton. Obama, Edwards, and other have all brought it up. They continue to say (or imply) that voting for Hillary would be like a vote for the 90s again with Bill. Do they not realize that talk like that works against them? Is it just me, or isn't Bill Clinton, and his time as president, one of the best in history? The point is----that in the current state of the world, people, especially Democrats, look back on the time of Bill Clinton as, "heaven". In fact, about 70% of all Americans (Democrats and Republicans) liked Bill Clinton as President. Thats compared to about 25% for our current President.

One last thing I must caution the candidates about when going after Hillary: Don't be a hypocrite. She will undoubtably be attacked for her Iran vote. The problem is that Obama, and others, supported and voted for a bill, just like the recent one, back in April. And to make matters even worse for Obama, he didn't even bother to show up to vote against this bill thats he is all of a sudden dead set against. It's hard to claim that you're a leader on an issue when you simply don't show up to vote on it.

I must say that I am definitely looking forward to tomorrow's debate. I think we will finally see some fireworks between the candidates. This is Obama's chance to "chop" away at the support of Hillary. But, Hillary also has a chance to do something big. She can, with a good, convincing argument, effectively shut down the Obama machine. What I mean by that is this----if Obama comes at her full force, and Hillary can counter-argue his points in her favor, then she makes it just about impossible for Obama to do anything more to hurt her chances at the nomination. In simple terms---it's do or die for Obama. He has to put all his cards on the table and hope that they work. If they don't, its over; he's out of the game; he doesn't have any more cards to play, and Hillary wins. As for the other 5 candidates, quite frankly, they don't have a chance. This is a two person race, and, after tomorrow's debate, it could become a one person race.

Remembering The Kennedy-Nixon Debates (a special editorial by John Lucia)

The Kennedy-Nixon debates, to this very day, still set the standards for Presidential debates. They were of substance and about the future of the country. It was at a time during the Cold War with Russia, and Russia was flexing its muscle at the time and there were many other pressing problems that the new President would face. The moderators' questions were about the future and what the candidates would do if elected President.

Divisive issues such as moral/family values, homosexuals, personal attacks, and patriotism were not part of the debates as it is today and for good reason. What mattered was how the new President would deal with the future. The debates were over 40 years ago but they were civil in nature. Compare that to the tough talk and bluster of today's debates.

Our moderators today talk more about the past voting record and statements of the candidates rather than their positions on the future that they will have to lead. Past statements or voting records of a candidate don't tell the whole story of what that candidates position would be if he is elected President. Why? Because as President he will have to represent all of the people and deal with foreign affairs and foreign leaders. As a member of Congress, a Mayor, or a Governor the candidate represented a city, state, or district and would not shoulder the responsibility that a President does.

Present moderators are in fact more interested in the show business part of television. They pick up self serving statements of some candidate and try to project that into the debates. Moderator Tim Russert in the Democratic debate of last week at Dartmouth was so interested in several candidates past votes, statements, and hypothetical questions that he failed the purpose of the debates, that is to inform the public of what the candidate would do if elected President.

Asking hypothetical questions does not bring reality to debates because it contains an escape avenue and the answer always bring more hype and questions from people in the news media who try to promote a story that is not really there.

When was the last time any one heard a moderator ask the candidates what they would do if elected President to balance the federal budget after the record federal deficits this administration has piled up on the nation and its people? Interest payments alone on the National Debt for fiscal year 2006 was over 400 billion dollars. Shouldn't that be a subject of interest in the debates?

I would recommend that debate moderators rerun the Kennedy-Nixon debate tapes for themselves so they can learn a thing or two. And if Jim Lehrer is one of the moderators in the final debates between the Republican and Democratic candidates in the general election, he should watch them over and over, again and again. Maybe he will get it right one day.

AFL-CIO Forum Analysis

So the top 7 Democrats running for the office of U.S. President took the stage at Soldier field in the intense heat of Chicago and infront of over 10,ooo union members. The biggest story of the night was the good old battle of experience versus change when Clinton, Dodd, & Biden triple-teamed home town hero, Obama, on his foreign policy. This all began last week when Obama said he would attack Pakistan if he got intelligence bin-Laden was there, with or without the Pakistani leader's permission:"if Musharraf doesn't act, we will". Clinton and Dodd proved that they have the experience of foreign relations, making it clear that the goal is to stop islamic extremists, but Obama's plan would only disable Pakistan's already shaky government and could very well turn it into a nuclear power headed by those same islamic extremists that want us dead. Biden later chimed in saying that while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, there is only one fact. This can be seen as a shot at Obama for trying to undermine possibly our only ally in the War on Terror in the middle east. So who won that confrontation? Well for the people in attendance it was Obama and maybe for the far-left of the democratic party, Obama also scored some points. But Clinton, Dodd, & Biden showed their experience and appealed to main-stream America. Clinton and her buddies hace their eyes set on the general election, while Obama is trying to upset Clinton with the liberal caucas goers in Iowa. And finally who had a good showing last night? Well Clinton did as good as she always does. Her, Dodd, & Biden's experience showed. Richardson again did poorly. He has all the experience but just does horribly in these forum/debate settings. Obama did okay. He is trying to appeal to the far-left and did just that. Edwards failed, he was supposed to be the angry populist fighting for the working man, but Kucinich completely out-shined him. So if there was a debate winner it has to be Clinton, but if I was to base it on who appealed to be the best for the AFL-CIO, it was Kucinich.