Monday, June 04, 2007
Democratic New Hampshire Debate: Kucinich Sí, Clinton No
On 2007 June 3, the second Democratic debate was held in this great Presidential Contest, the biggest and most important election in American history. The same eight Democrats participated. Just as with last time, Kucinich was way ahead of the pack, and Clinton way, way behind. Otherwise, the candidates who performed well last time performed poorly this time and vice versa, so the remainder fo the pack form a muddled middle, in which one can't tell which is the best. Of course, this is with respect to just debates. It may be possible to pick a favorite on other grounds.
But let's stick to the debate for now. Here is how I think the candidates fared:
1. Clinton. Once again, she displayed insincerity, and further, she seems to have a penchant for quashing debate, as well. Several times, when Wolf or someone else asked her what if something should occur, she said she would not comment on anything hypothetical. Ms. Clinton, you are campaigning for President of the United States at the beginning of a crisis for our country, and you need to tell us under such "hypothetical conditions what you would do as President. And this I say to all the candidates: soon after you take office, the hypothetical will happen. Unusual events or contingencies do happen, and they are likely to happen in our age.
Ms. Clinton also claimed credit for surpluses at the beginning of Bush's term. The Clintons had nothing to do with that. The development of the Internet and the dot-com boom is what caused that. She tried to argue that "don't ask don't tell" was the best her husband could do for gays in the military. She did make an interesting quote from Goldwater, but I feel she is characterized by her statements that she should have known about Iraq. As far as I am concerned, if there were WMDs in Iraq, I still don't think the US should have invaded. If nominated, I probably will vote for her, unless Bloomberg runs. But to me she is the worst of the Democratic candidates.
2. Obama did better than last time. Among his positive points: the English language as an issue is a distraction, and his health plan is better than Edwards'. His biggest negative was defending contractors in the choice of Veteran's hospitals. In my opinion, finding a contractor to provide veterans with health care deprives the veteran of the right to choose. But I still think Obama's freshness is what we need in this country now.
3. Edwards. He did well last time, but this time he stumbled. His phrase "It's Obvious" is a putdown. Avoid using that phrase! He wanted states to determine what to do with gay marriage. This puts Edwards in the segregationist states' rights position. Many states will forbid it, and Edwards knows it. Perhaps his biggest asset tonight was saying that the US has lost its moral authority.
4. Richardson. This guy really surprised me late in the debates. He said that if China did not cooperate in ending the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, then perhaps we shouldn't go to the Beijing Olympics. This has happened twice before. The US boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (And now the US has done it. Go figure.) I thought for sure this would ruin his candidacy, but I Googled and found that there already is a movement on to boycott the Beijing Olympics because of China's atrocious human rights record. So this is really nothing new. Still only Kucinich and Richardson would support such a boycott. Richardson had a tendency to talk on and on, leading the moderators to try to cut him off. He did say that a veteran ("hero") should have a health card good anywhere, contractors or no. His biggest negative was saying that he was a "pro-growth" Democrat. No, Richardson. There cannot be indefinite growth. This sort of infinite-growth mentality has led our world to its present plight with peak oil, global warming, and shortages of food, lithium and other commodities.
5. Biden Also big improvement since last debate. He really came out fighting in the last few moments. He emphatically said something should be done about Darfur, including troops to take out the Jenjaweed. He told us that the Iran crisis may be a Bush-media concocted hype, for he told us that they are 10 years away from a weapon, and that its government is weak and unpopular and that it is importing oil.
6. Kucinich Just as good as last time. He maintained a huge lead on the others. He says "no money, no bill" on Iraq, and refuses to use assassination (of Osama) as a foreign policy tool. He quoted Kennedy at one time, in dealing with the energy crisis and with health care. He was the only candidate to say the Iraq war's reason was oil. At times, though, he was too long-winded.
7. Gravel Mainly there to provoke the others. He did not do too badly. He advocated a carbon tax. We need that now, badly. He does not want mandatory programs, such as mandatory country service (some read that as "draft"). He does not want the Social Security fund raided. Correct. That is to be left alone for Social Security purposes only.
8. Dodd Too long-winded. He also supports a carbon tax, and rebates for poor people. He would veto any bill that contains earmarks, including those for Connecticut, his home state. However, he is pro-growth. He's not going to get nominated, anyway.
The point standings, giving this time and total of both, are
Clinton, -6, -15
Obama, 1, 0
Edwards, -1, 2
Richardson, -2,1
Kucinich, 6, 15
Gravel, 2, 1
Biden, 2,1
Dodd, 0,2
Note that all candidates now have totals of 0, 1, or 2, except Clinton and Kucinich.
I missed reviewing the Republicans. I will say here that Ron Paul was the best of them. I will review both Republican debates after tomorrow night's (2007 June 5) debates in New Hampshire.
But let's stick to the debate for now. Here is how I think the candidates fared:
1. Clinton. Once again, she displayed insincerity, and further, she seems to have a penchant for quashing debate, as well. Several times, when Wolf or someone else asked her what if something should occur, she said she would not comment on anything hypothetical. Ms. Clinton, you are campaigning for President of the United States at the beginning of a crisis for our country, and you need to tell us under such "hypothetical conditions what you would do as President. And this I say to all the candidates: soon after you take office, the hypothetical will happen. Unusual events or contingencies do happen, and they are likely to happen in our age.
Ms. Clinton also claimed credit for surpluses at the beginning of Bush's term. The Clintons had nothing to do with that. The development of the Internet and the dot-com boom is what caused that. She tried to argue that "don't ask don't tell" was the best her husband could do for gays in the military. She did make an interesting quote from Goldwater, but I feel she is characterized by her statements that she should have known about Iraq. As far as I am concerned, if there were WMDs in Iraq, I still don't think the US should have invaded. If nominated, I probably will vote for her, unless Bloomberg runs. But to me she is the worst of the Democratic candidates.
2. Obama did better than last time. Among his positive points: the English language as an issue is a distraction, and his health plan is better than Edwards'. His biggest negative was defending contractors in the choice of Veteran's hospitals. In my opinion, finding a contractor to provide veterans with health care deprives the veteran of the right to choose. But I still think Obama's freshness is what we need in this country now.
3. Edwards. He did well last time, but this time he stumbled. His phrase "It's Obvious" is a putdown. Avoid using that phrase! He wanted states to determine what to do with gay marriage. This puts Edwards in the segregationist states' rights position. Many states will forbid it, and Edwards knows it. Perhaps his biggest asset tonight was saying that the US has lost its moral authority.
4. Richardson. This guy really surprised me late in the debates. He said that if China did not cooperate in ending the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, then perhaps we shouldn't go to the Beijing Olympics. This has happened twice before. The US boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (And now the US has done it. Go figure.) I thought for sure this would ruin his candidacy, but I Googled and found that there already is a movement on to boycott the Beijing Olympics because of China's atrocious human rights record. So this is really nothing new. Still only Kucinich and Richardson would support such a boycott. Richardson had a tendency to talk on and on, leading the moderators to try to cut him off. He did say that a veteran ("hero") should have a health card good anywhere, contractors or no. His biggest negative was saying that he was a "pro-growth" Democrat. No, Richardson. There cannot be indefinite growth. This sort of infinite-growth mentality has led our world to its present plight with peak oil, global warming, and shortages of food, lithium and other commodities.
5. Biden Also big improvement since last debate. He really came out fighting in the last few moments. He emphatically said something should be done about Darfur, including troops to take out the Jenjaweed. He told us that the Iran crisis may be a Bush-media concocted hype, for he told us that they are 10 years away from a weapon, and that its government is weak and unpopular and that it is importing oil.
6. Kucinich Just as good as last time. He maintained a huge lead on the others. He says "no money, no bill" on Iraq, and refuses to use assassination (of Osama) as a foreign policy tool. He quoted Kennedy at one time, in dealing with the energy crisis and with health care. He was the only candidate to say the Iraq war's reason was oil. At times, though, he was too long-winded.
7. Gravel Mainly there to provoke the others. He did not do too badly. He advocated a carbon tax. We need that now, badly. He does not want mandatory programs, such as mandatory country service (some read that as "draft"). He does not want the Social Security fund raided. Correct. That is to be left alone for Social Security purposes only.
8. Dodd Too long-winded. He also supports a carbon tax, and rebates for poor people. He would veto any bill that contains earmarks, including those for Connecticut, his home state. However, he is pro-growth. He's not going to get nominated, anyway.
The point standings, giving this time and total of both, are
Clinton, -6, -15
Obama, 1, 0
Edwards, -1, 2
Richardson, -2,1
Kucinich, 6, 15
Gravel, 2, 1
Biden, 2,1
Dodd, 0,2
Note that all candidates now have totals of 0, 1, or 2, except Clinton and Kucinich.
I missed reviewing the Republicans. I will say here that Ron Paul was the best of them. I will review both Republican debates after tomorrow night's (2007 June 5) debates in New Hampshire.
