The Dem Debate

[texaspackerbacker]

This is just fantastic. 50 minutes into it, and the ONLY thing they have covered are Obama's scandals and Hillary's scandals. And most of that is the result of questions from real people--Pennsylvania Democrats.

Obama was asked about his close relationship with this guy, Ayres, from the Weather Underground, who back in the day, planted bombs at the Pentagon and the New York City police headquarters (how in the hell is he NOT locked up?). Well, if that isn't good enough, Obama's comback to Hillary was that when Ol' Bill, her husband was president, he actually PARDONED these Weather Underground domestic terrorists. Obama went on to say, the Republicans will probably attack both of us for this kind of thing. YA THINK?

Now, Hillary just repeated her pledge to withdraw two brigades per month from Iraq as soon as she takes office, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE COMMANDERS IN THE FIELD WANTED. And if that isn't good enough--in the sick sense, Obama just echoed the same cut and run stupidity.

You go Dems! You're piling up votes for McCain with every word you say--and that's a good thing!

[falco]

is anybody even watching the debates anymore? other than you i mean

[Tyrone Bigguns]

is anybody even watching the debates anymore? other than you i mean

I agree. What could be more of a waste of time for those of us who've already cast their ballot.

Besides, what is the point? Fox will tell me the truth...why would i need to view it first hand?

[Harlan Huckleby]

the scandal discussion was the fun part.

Iraq discussion - maybe they really mean it. Pull out of Iraq within 2 years regardless of consequences. I wish I knew for sure what they really think. They sure didn't leave any wiggle room.

[falco]

the scandal discussion was the fun part.

Iraq discussion - maybe they really mean it. Pull out of Iraq within 2 years regardless of consequences. I wish I knew for sure what they really think. They sure didn't leave any wiggle room.

...and harlan i guess

[Harlan Huckleby]

ahh, my xbox was on the fritz.

[Joemailman]

I guess Tex is amazed to learn there are people running for President who think that the President, and not Army generals, should be setting our foreign policy. Countries where the Generals run foreign policy usually have issues.

The real loser tonight was ABC. I thought their line of questioning at times was positively amateurish. I also thought it odd that someone who worked in the Clinton administration was allowed to be one of the moderators of the debate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

April 16, 2008
No Whining About the Media
By David Brooks

Three quick points on the Democratic debate tonight:
First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
The middle section of the debate, meanwhile, was stupendous. Those could be the most important 30 minutes of this entire campaign, for reasons I will explain in point two:
Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.
Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.
The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.
The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.
Final grades:
ABC: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+

[Harlan Huckleby]

The real loser tonight was ABC. I thought their line of questioning at times was positively amateurish. I also thought it odd that someone who worked in the Clinton administration was allowed to be one of the moderators of the debate.

Stepanoupolis is one of the best journalists on TV. Very smart, tough, and scrupulously even-handed. He has not favored any candidate this year, and that is truly rare.

[texaspackerbacker]

The real loser tonight was ABC. I thought their line of questioning at times was positively amateurish. I also thought it odd that someone who worked in the Clinton administration was allowed to be one of the moderators of the debate.

Stepanoupolis is one of the best journalists on TV. Very smart, tough, and scrupulously even-handed. He has not favored any candidate this year, and that is truly rare.

I wouldn't go quite that far in praising him, but considering his rotten past, I will say, he has been surprisingly even-handed in his Sunday morning show.

I thought he zinged Hillary almost as much as Obama in the debate--you might say in proportion to the gaffs and scandals each has had.

Joe, would you be so in favor of the president ignoring the advice of his generals if the president was more in favor of extending the war and the generals against it? I think your comment on that subject was disingenuous.

[hoosier]

The real loser tonight was ABC. I thought their line of questioning at times was positively amateurish. I also thought it odd that someone who worked in the Clinton administration was allowed to be one of the moderators of the debate.

Stepanoupolis is one of the best journalists on TV. Very smart, tough, and scrupulously even-handed. He has not favored any candidate this year, and that is truly rare.

I wouldn't go quite that far in praising him, but considering his rotten past, I will say, he has been surprisingly even-handed in his Sunday morning show.

I thought he zinged Hillary almost as much as Obama in the debate--you might say in proportion to the gaffs and scandals each has had.

Joe, would you be so in favor of the president ignoring the advice of his generals if the president was more in favor of extending the war and the generals against it? I think your comment on that subject was disingenuous.

I can't speak for Joe, but I don't think his point is disingenous at all, since the White House is using Petraeus's military perspective to justify its own foreign policy positions. In other words, the White House is effectively cloaking its own political calculations by passing them off as purely military, tactical decisions. Joe's point, as I understood it, was that the political component of US policy in Iraq should be forced to show its hand, not hide behind the non-political banner of tactics.

[texaspackerbacker]

Actually, Bush is doing EXACTLY what Joe (disingenuously?) says he should do: using Petraeus's strategic and tactical expertize to execute well thought out and effective administration foreign policy--that is what you meant to say, isn't it Hoosier?

If there's any "justifying" going on, it is merely the countering of the leftist demagoguery over Iraq by trumpeting Petraeus's successes.

[Joemailman]

My point is that the decision on whether to continue the occupation or to bring it to a close is a political one, just as the decision to invade in the first place was a political one. I was responding to Tex' post which said "Now, Hillary just repeated her pledge to withdraw two brigades per month from Iraq as soon as she takes office, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE COMMANDERS IN THE FIELD WANTED.

It doesn't matter what the commanders in the field want. They are not elected, the President is. The President can and should listen to them, but their job is to execute the mission of the President, whether that means staying in Irag, or leaving.

[texaspackerbacker]

Whether to strive for a positive solution or to just say the hell with it and cut and run, THAT is a political decision. If the decision is to go for a positive conclusion, then the HOW aspect becomes a military decision.

If Hillary and Obama REALLY want to cut and run regardless of consequences, they should state that. In that case, the only job of the military would be to design a quick, safe escape for the troops.

Hillary and Obama, however, are trying to have it both ways--satisfying their extremist left wing followers with a quick run out, and NOT losing support of people--even a lot of Democrats--who have enough sense to know cutting and running is stupid and harmful to US--U.S.--never mind the bloodbath it could cause in Iraq.

[Kiwon]

is anybody even watching the debates anymore? other than you i mean

Thinking people do. Sharp, falco.

"The prime-time debate from Philadelphia on Wednesday was seen by 10.7 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research. That's the most of any debate this election cycle -- topping the 9.3 million who watched the Democrats on ABC Jan. 5"