The Ohio Democratic Presidential debate
Democratic Party, Issues for the next President, Presidential Candidate
Written by Michael Vass
My initial impressions of the Democratic Presidential debate in Ohio are that this is turning out to be quite a match. So far Senator Clinton has been quite forceful in trying to make a stand on universal healthcare, and to a lesser extent Iraq. NAFTA was a sore point.
I found her whining about getting the first question on issues she has made comments on and obviously wanted to answer, and suggesting that Obama should be offered a pillow – like on Saturday Night Live – less than Presidential and weak. And for the record she has only gotten the first question 6 out of 10 times including this debate where she chose to answer the open question to both candidates.
Her seeming demand that her plan was better and that professionals thought so fell flat. She did not answer the question of what is affordable, and if she would cause penalties to come out of the paychecks of those that do not accept her plan. Obama made a good case why children need to be covered and parents will chose to be covered if given an affordable option.
I think it looked bad that Clinton would not let the issue end and had to try to get the last word in on that issue, as well as several others. I’m upset that 16 minutes were spent on universal healthcare because Senator Clinton did not agree with Senator Obama. Especially since this is not a program that exists right now, and other questions on issues that do exist were not able to be asked of either candidate.
In terms of NAFTA, her answers were weak. She had the worst answer possible about her promise to Upstate New York. In her bid to gain the Senatorship, she promised to create 200,000 jobs. What has actually happened is that 30,000 jobs left since she has been elected. That is a fact. The reason why was,
“Because I thought Al Gore would be President.”
A leader should not promise things they cannot deliver. A leader should make clear that a plan that requires unknown probabilities is not a promise. Because I can tell you many in Binghamton NY, where I now reside, remember the promise that was made and the numerous jobs that have been lost since that time; and how the area in Central New York is suffering.
Iraq is a big issue for both candidates. I personally do not agree with either of their positions. Thus rather than addressing how they debated this point, I will simply state that they both claim plans towards leaving Iraq.
I will say that on the issue of experience, which Senator Clinton claims Obama does not have, Senator Obama made a very good stand. He clearly outlined that his comments about acting against Al Quida in Pakistan back in the summer of 2007 is exactly what America recently did in killing the number 3 man in that organization.
I found the comments by Senator Clinton, butting in on the denouncement of Senator Obama to Minister Farrakhan because of his anti-Semitic comments, rude and unnecessary. It was an obvious try to try to corner Senator Obama as somehow being connected to Islam and the Nation of Islam. She attempted to embarrass Obama, asking him to reject on top of renounce Minister Farrakhan. To her annoyance, I imagine, he reiterated that he did both, renounce and reject. But what that had to do with her trying to get in that she supports Israel and Jewish people is beyond me.
In the closing statements based on the question what does your opponent need to do to win the nomination the answers were very telling. Senator Obama stated that Clinton was qualified and more worthy than Senator McCain, and took about 2 minutes in lauding her before he mentioned why he is after the nomination and why he felt he was better. Senator Clinton, by contrast opened with what made them both good candidates. She spent a minute discussing how “we are qualified” and “they both wanted the best for America” before continuing on her self-promotion.
Oh her not so subtle inclusion of gender seemed a pandering move towards women. As if she was the only one to be a history making candidate. That playing to women, almost as a fear tactic, was her battlecry. This contrasts the fact that Senator Obama never felt the need to emphasize that he is African American and that he would be making history and that this was the chance for Blacks to “change the playing field” as Senator Clinton implored.
Overall I felt Obama won the debate. He did not feel the need to press Clinton into a corner. He showed a very Presidential stance in that he took her attacks and rather than attack back he just answered the question. Unlike Clinton, Obama does not seem to need to hammer a fight to finality.
Perhaps the most telling thing is that Clinton felt the need to be unequivocal and final in her position about how Obama dealt with Farrakhan – a point that she was not involved with at all. She closed all options and demanded a response that met her standard. Obama worked as a facilitator, having a position and willing to take the extra step to get to a conclusion that he already agreed with.
That is the potential Presidents that we see. In Senator Clinton, a President that will demand and fight to get only and exactly what she wants, at whatever cost. In Senator Obama, a President that is level headed and willing to bend as long as he is in the direction he believes is right. Considering the differences between the Democratic and Republican political parties, which do you, think will be most likely to pass laws that the candidates are basing their nominations on?
admin @ February 27, 2008
And here I am looking for unbiased American thoughts on their presidential race. I am a neutral Canadian who has been watching some of the shenanigans of this Nomination race as of late - it can be quite entertaining. I started out just watching but then became amazed at home one-sided the criticism of the media has been of the two Democratic candidates.
My first debate that I watched was the Austin, Texas debate and my 12 year old daughter commented before I did on the fact that Hilary Clinton was being asked the questions first which gave Barack Obama a chance- in many of his answers- to simply agree with her. It is true that in that debate that she was ASKED all but one question first. (I am not counting the ability to give a closing statement)
I highly encourage Americans to read the actual transcripts of these debates - the words, without the emotions because as an impartial observer of the last two debates I see that Barack Obama is a great orator, a media dream candidate but has very little substance to offer.
My 12 year old again commented that he had very little original thoughts to add and piggybacked on Clinton’s answers.
Could be wrong - just got to say that I feel like I am watching a Hollywood movie rather than an election and that Americans really need to think that they are voting for someone to represent them internally and externally for the next 4 years.
You know what I think was Hillary’s two strong, positive points tonight were?
(A) Her make-up
(b) Her hair
were much improved.
Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head for me. Those were exactly my thoughts about it.
I like Hillary, but I wish she were less calculating. Her persona is very cynical. I don’t like the my way or the highway—- I’ll fight you over everything and nothing —and I’ll throw dirt in your face, approach.
I think she’ll do anything to win. The Iraq vote was a calculated move and it was wrong, just like how she has made so many calculated errors during this campaign.
Again, I like Hillary. I’m a woman and I want to see a woman become President. But, it’s not just about that. I wish she had demonstrated to us that she had some higher principles. I wish she wasn’t so calculating.
Hillary’s behavior concerning Farrakhan’s endorsement was Clintonian language of what the word IS is. Denounce and reject are, according to the dictionary, synonyms. I am disappointed in Hillary’s Bill-Phonics. Obama said SEVERAL times that Farrakhan’s endorsement was unsolicited and unwelcomed and was denounced by his campaign. Obama was quite clear. Even after Obama made himself quite clear, Hillary wanted to belabor the point.
Obama doesn’t belabor the point on issues or trivia. He’s smart enough to move on. If he agrees, he agrees. If he doesn’t agree, then he will level-headedly disagree and state his point of view.
Hillary was very DISRESPECTFUL to the moderators and to the debate due process, which is why the moderators practically had to become aggressive in cutting her off. Because Hillary was disrespectful of the process, she illicited an unfavorableness from the moderators. Hillary is not someone I would send on a PEACE mission or agenda… she would do nothing short of riling opposition with her bullying style.
Seeing Hillary’s debate STYLE, is a window into her personable relations and communication skills with others, which is very poor. She has shown her capacity to make enemies out of friends.
Obama’s personable relations and communication skills enables COOPERATION and diffuses the unnecessary. I would definitely send him to Geneva for peace talks or to the United Nations and trust his ability to carry himself in a progress-full manner. I can trust that he’s not a hot-head, not even when being attacked below the belt. He is so steady, that just that alone frustrates the Clintons.
Hillary says she’s tried, yet the young so-called “inexperienced” Barack can get right under her skin like nothing just by being himself. Hillary once asked, “Who would you rather see answering the red phone at 3:am in the morning?” I would prefer it be Barack Obama, not the multiple personalities of Hillary Clinton.
Hillary says she’s a fighter, yet she has proven that she doesn’t make smart choices about what fights to engage in and what fight tactics would yield the most favorable results. Her campaign strategy has also shown this, that she doesn’t “pick” smart fights.
People are diverse in this great nation.
We are not all book smart, who can sit down and analyze congressional service records. We do not all have access to the internet to research various articles and substantive documents and have the time to analyze EACH of them. We are diverse in our educational and critical thinking backgrounds. Most of us do not STORE in our long term memory, a myriad of accomplishments of the candidates. We are also diverse in our INTUITIVE awareness and experience. There is a reason why potential employers don’t just review your resume and call your references –but want to also call you in for an interview to get that “first impression” and observe you as you answer questions –FEEL you. You can have an impressive resume, but if your personality stinks, you won’t get the job.
For many Americans, OBSERVATIONS during the campaigning process sample quite well the experience, the leadership, the personality, the integrity, the communication skills, the overall ideology, etc. that they perceive favorable in a candidate. The campaign reflects the candidate.
People are drawn to Obama, because of his experience organizing the local “mom & pop” support for a common goal across the country toward his election; his calm and strategic leadership especially against attacks; his overall welcoming personality; his open-book integrity of disclosing earmarks, tax returns, his past as written in his books, his public service record; his energizing communication skills that keep the “troops” encouraged; and his overall ideology of inclusion of who so ever will come together to work for change –let them come, because yes WE can make the changes WE are seeking.
From Michael Vass
To all who left a comment, thank you for your time and voicing your opinions.
Asha,
I’m glad that in your search for unbiased coverage of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election you found my posts. I have strived to be essentially neutral overall, though I believe that every writer has some degree of bias in such a critical matter.
I also find it interesting that our Canadian neighbors are interested in the results as much as most Americans are. It just reinforces my thought that this is possibly the most important election facing America in perhaps several decades.
While I agree that several of the questions were asked of Senator Clinton first, I do not believe that is an impediment. It allows Clinton to set the tone and pace of the following questions and the debate in general. It allows her to stand out with her response, and since both the Democratic candidates are essentially promoting the same political positions it allows the conclusion that your 12 year old had to be made.
I have followed this election since 2006, and politics on and off for my entire life. As such I am very familiar with comments and campaign promises made by all the candidates since the start. I often go over the transcripts of debates when they become available, as well as speeches and letters. If you review my many posts on this election you will find that I provide links to ever resource, post, and article that I use. This is all meant to do one thing, allow you my reader to form your own opinion.
And I agree that politics in America is a very polished and choreographed process these days. It seems even worse when the fact of the candidates positions are so similar is added. But because of this it is the minor points that give the most incite at times. I believe that my conclusion in the post highlights the major difference of the candidates. That is the real factor that I believe will determine their ultimate electability and performance as President.
But I offer only my opinion, it is for the American citizens to vote their belief and pick whoever is best for the nation collectively.
Vigilante,
While I find your response humorous I must give Senator Clinton a bit more credit. I have stated that I would not vote for her, and that I have not made a choice between Senators McCain and Obama. Given that, to be fair, Senator Clinton did try to take a strong stance on her positions and provide more substance for her positions. Though I find that she has flipped her positions and voting based on popularity, and that she has engaged in a “win at all cost” campaign.
Notelling,
I respect your wish to have a woman as President. I see nothing wrong with that, if the woman is worthy of the position. I do not see Senator Clinton as being that woman. As I have stated, and her actions as well as those of her campaign have shown, she does not evoke the best interest of the nation. That is my interpretation. But perhaps she can inspire, or open the door for a more qualified and substantial woman to become the President in 2012 or some time soon after.
I am glad that you found my last paragraph to be a fair and accurate in expressing what type of President either of the Democratic hopefuls could be. But even for those that disagree with my opinion, the ultimate choice must be made in the votes.
No matter what you may believe I implore that every America that can vote should. It is only then that I believe the best possible choice for America will be found, and will lead America on the best path. The questions of race, gender, religion are all factors in any decision, but cannot be the only factor. The best overall candidate must be the choice of America, as you believe it to be.
MahoganyShotgun,
I agree with many of your points. Several of them are mentioned to a degree in my post. And I believe we both agree that it is because of those observations that not only did Clinton lose the debate, but has shown herself to be the least desirable candidate for President.
I always come back to the thought that if a candidate is willing to demand they be heard unfairly, shows a willingness to violate rules and agreements made in the past (the issue of Super Delegates and the Michigan and Florida Primaries), and is willing to employ – directly and indirectly – tactics that are universally seen as morally corrupt (the inference of Islamic terrorism and the use of race as a negative) then what is that candidate going to do with the power of the highest office of the most powerful nation in the world?