Debate Thoughts?
Cold War Between Obama and Clinton
Much of the discussion from last night is about how much nicer Clinton and Obama were during last night's debate. Which inevitably reminds everyone of South Carolina, and I'm not sure that helps Clinton.
To Be, Or Not To Be
Obama should have had a better answer to the question of being Vice President, or Hillary as his.
Try these:
"I think many of the other Democratic candidates who entered this race would be on anyone's shortlist."
"I'm running for President because I believe the country is ready for a change, and I think I'm the best one to lead the American people. There's a clear choice in this election, and I am the candidate of change that even the Republicans are trying to imitate. If I don't get the nomination, that will be a clear sign to me that the country isn't as ready for change as so many people have hoped."
Of course, there's alot of gossip these days about what exactly Senator Obama will do if he doesn't get the nomination. Some say he couldn't turn down the VP slot if Clinton offered it. Some hope he will stay in the Senate and help them gain a meaningful majority. Some advise him to run for Governor of Mayor of Chicago and get executive experience.
The Issues
The two crossed sharp swords over fine but important differences on health care. Hillary offers a Blagojevich-style health care plan. Like Blagojevich, Clinton would tax businesses who fail to provide a government-mandated level of care.
Obama takes an approach that had bipartisan support in George Ryan's time. Gradual expansion of programs that help individuals to choose to get subsidies to buy insurance. Obama should be touting the success of Family Care far-and-wide, while pointing out the failure of a plan very similar to Clinton's in Massachusetts. John McCain will love him for it.
One thing is clear. Obama needs to expand the debate over immigration. While the current "bipartisan" plan in Washington is viewed as radical by those on the Right, it is not "radical" enough in the true meaning of the word because it does not address root causes.
"Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning to breath free" are not just empty words on a rusted statue.
In fact, while the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France in 1886, the famous poem "The New Colossus" was not part of the original design, and wasn't inscribed on the statue's pedestal until 1903. Between 1890 and 1900, more than half a million Italians immigrated to the U.S. fleeing abject poverty. Before them came the Irish. While many brought skills with them, mostly as farmers, they could not buy land, and most worked doing back-breaking unskilled labor, working their way up into the middle class.
America must recognize that people are still immigrating to the U.S. today driven by the same forces. What forces someone to risk arrest and death in the desert? Why would someone suffer separation from their family and second class citizenship? Because economic conditions for the average Mexican family are so inhuman.
On the War Front
Most think the shifting of the debate back to Iraq helps Obama. He can thank the Republicans for that. With the notable exception of Ron Paul, they seem to be trying to out-Dr. Strangelove one another.
One point that Obama needs to make explicitly -- which John Kerry should be the one to deliver -- is that the Republicans will surely Swiftboat Hillary just as they swiftboated Kerry. Only probably worse, given her lack of military service. "She was for the war before she was against it" is all that we will hear for 5 months. And Clinton still doesn't have an answer.
In 2003, roughly 3 in 4 American adults supported the invasion of Iraq.
That means that - for whatever reason - 1 in 4 Americans did not. That's even if you believe that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong and was just taking the politically expedient exit.
But to me, the real question in this debate isn't "How did Barack Obama get it right and Hillary Clinton get it wrong?"
The real question in this debate is "How did 50 million Americans get it right and Hillary Clinton get it wrong?"
4 comments:
The real question in this debate is "How did 50 million Americans get it right and Hillary Clinton get it wrong?"
I believed Bill Clinton when he said back in 1998 to the Joint Chiefs,
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.
I suspect those 3 out 4 Americans did too. It's a big reason why I voted Gore-Lieberman over Bush-Cheney in 2000. Once you undertake a war as we did you have to choice but finish it by winning because even if a mistake, Colonel Morganthaler correctly tells us (although I doubt those fellows abused in Abu Garib were the ones who killed Americans),
Figen shared with me what it was like to spend 7 months under Iraqi occupation. As she told me the horrors of living in Kuwait under the occupation, I realized that if we had not had the first war, Saddam may have been impossible to stop with the oil under his total control. The men who did terrible things to the Kuwaitis, especially the Kuwaiti women are very similar to the men we are fighting. As people get upset about Abu Ghraib, one thing that should never be forgotten: these are men who have murdered Americans and would continue to murder Americans if given the opportunity.
And that's why McCain will probably beat either Obama or Clinton. Maybe Colonel Morgenthaler will beat Roskam to Congress too, and be one of those Democrats McCain works with...
Here's Obama yesterday YDD in Paris Match per Reuters.
This is the kind of thing Democrats baffle with. They talk of abandoning a key Arab allie in the midst of a war we both are winning, and then propose a conf with the Muslims to join us in a fight on terrorism. It's just doesn't add up...
"Once I'm elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West," Thursday's edition of Paris Match quoted Obama as saying,
"I want to ask them to join our fight against terrorism. We must also listen to their concerns," Obama said in the French-language transcript.
Four out of four voters will get baffled in a real debate where the record really explored.
Wow - how unbelievably short-sighted your blagojevich hatred has become.
The Obama plan is almost the exact same as the Blagojevich plan. This was pointed out numerous times last summer.
If Blago and Obama's health care plans are identical, why doesn't Blago call his plan the Obama plan? You know Rod just stole Obama's plan anyway. And having Obama as the author of the plan sells it much better than Blago's name.
It won't happen because its not what is good for the people or the state, its what is good for Rod!
Post a Comment