Most Telling Moment In Sunday's Democratic Debate
The question of how tough a Democratic presidential candidate needs to sound to get elected hovered over the debate, as it may over the coming primary races.Of course they're both right. But Edwards' response focuses on his differences with Bush whereas Clinton's focuses (as Shapiro says) on her own strength and resolve.Edwards boldly defended his prior comment that the "war on terror" was little more than rhetoric: "This global war on terror bumper sticker -- political slogan ... was intended for ... George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture."
That was too much for Clinton, who, as the first woman to wage a serious candidacy for president, must understand the political risks of seeming weak in any setting.
Responding to Edwards, she said flatly that she disagreed, before adding, "I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda."
The second most interesting moment was when Edwards and Obama sparred -- but not about Iraq. On that score I think Obama ate Edwards lunch, cooly reminding him that he [Edwards] was "4-1/2 years late on leadership."
No, I think their exchange on health care plans was more telling. Edwards' plan is mandatory (good) -- and Obama's is not (bad). Honestly, I hadn't thought about that until the debate. Of course neither plan is much good compared to Kucinich's -- the Ohio congressman has the best idea: Medicare for all. The only way you fix the system is to make it universal. Not only that -- you have to exclude the insurance companies completely from the equation. Health care should not be subject to profit and share price calculations. So anything shy of that is a cop-out -- and Edwards' plan (and Obama's) fall far short. That said, if either one gets elected, their plans will be subject to congressional influence (to say the least).
Bottom line? These are not really debates but rather candidate interviews. And based on last night, I'd hire Hillary Clinton for the job. Luckily for the other top-tier candidates there's time for them to improve their presentations.
Comments
When you go for an interview, it's often best to bring your portfolio.
Going into this thing, Hillary was considered the lady who would lead the way on health care. (And for those of us who keep score, her husband claimed that mantle for two elections and gave us squat.)
You know Edwards has the most comprehensive, detailed and substantial health care plan which will phase out the profit-based insurance/medical/drugs alliance that Kucinich rails about -- simply because they won't be able to compete with a government run system. It softens the blow to the corporatists who lose the scare-monger arguments they rely on to stop "medicate for all."
Obama's plan do no such thing, and sets up no rival single-payor plan to compete with the current regime.
Krugman, behind the wall:
Read that in conjunction with The New Republic, which said:Obama's plan takes care of half to 2/3 of the uninsured. Hillary's plan takes care of, um...nobody until her second term? Gimme a break. Richardson does better than that.
This isn't like hiring an employee, rather retaining a professional like an architech. You look over the plans, decide if you can work with the person on a personal level, and can keep your hands off his wife. Kucinich has the job on paper, but loses me on the second two considerations. After that, I'm left with the guy who gives me the best blueprint on my pet issue, health care.
No brainer. And wouldn't it just kill Cheney to see Edwards get the job Dick always wanted?
Posted by: Mark Adams
|
June 4, 2007 01:56 PM
Bottom line? These are not really debates but rather candidate interviews. And based on last night, I'd hire Hillary Clinton for the job. Luckily for the other top-tier candidates there's time for them to improve their presentations.
True, but poor interviews at that when you consider that so much of the candidates responses were reduced to "a show of hands."
Posted by: Sandi
|
June 4, 2007 03:24 PM
She didn't "present" anything. What she attempted was to blur any real distinctions between her and the other guys.
Seriously, to paraphrase Ara, if you feel safer now than before 9/11 and Iraq, vote GOP, if not, vote Dem -- UNLESS YOU ARE HILLARY who said she feels safer now, but we should still vote for her cuz there's more safer stuff she will do. What Liebermanesque bullcrap!
How many more Patriot Acts, Hillary, how much more shredding of the Constitution must be done to make us as safe as you'd like?
I don't know how anyone who wasn't already a Hillary supporter could have been impressed enough by her "interview" to jump on her bandwagon after that. She lost ground with me.
Posted by: Mark Adams
|
June 4, 2007 04:44 PM
Pretty crafty, eh? If the others can't deal with that, how are they going to deal with the Republicans?
Hillary unfortunately does not have the luxury of nuance -- not as long as she is a woman playing a man's game. She has to be twice as tough as the others. Luckily for her, it won't be hard.
I don't recall Hillary having a record of shredding the Constitution. In fact, I don't recall that being a pre-requisite for being tough on defense. When did that happen anyway? When did Democrats cede that?
Funny you should bring that up. My 19 year old son (who was for Howard Dean back in '03) was very impressed with her performance -- and he has been turned off by here forever. "She's the only one on stage that I could see walking into the Situation Room and being in total control."
Posted by: Ara Rubyan
|
June 4, 2007 10:56 PM
Well, if no liberal Democrat comes along, I'm sure that HillaryEdwardsObama would do just fine. Relative to the alternative, i mean.
Posted by: shep
|
June 5, 2007 12:27 AM
Well, if no liberal Democrat comes along, I'm sure that HillaryEdwardsObama would do just fine. Relative to the alternative, I mean.
Posted by: shep
|
June 5, 2007 12:27 AM
She looked great and sounded strong and very presidential.
Posted by: Rosemary, The Queen of All Evil
|
June 6, 2007 06:52 AM