The high-stakes Democratic debate in Los Angeles Thursday night turned out to be pretty tame overall, with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton turning their sights on the Republicans and agreeing to disagree on policy differences.
Both did well.
But this was Obama’s best debate, and I think he benefited most. He looked and sounded presidential and seemed in command not just of the vision thing but of policy details.
On Iraq, it wasn’t even close. He routed Clinton. He emphasized his judgment and the fact that he had been against the war from the beginning, turning her “ready on day one†theme against her by arguing that “it is important to be right on day one.†He lucidly explained the set of criteria he would use to determine whether to take the country to war.
She was left to waffle and rationalize and meander on for 10 minutes, trying to explain her vote authorizing the war and why she wasn’t naive for believing President Bush wouldn’t invade. She sounded like a typical politician. And she still can’t admit the vote was wrong!
The war is an issue that still matters to Democrats. And Obama was able to draw a clear distinction between the candidates.
23 Comments
I’m glad they got down to issues this time – and focused on the real enemy – the Republicans.
Well thanks for that information Randy “Obama” Scholfield. :)
We are war with terrorists, fighting there is better than fighting here. This is America’s war not Bush’s war. The crazy Islamics can do no wrong? I’m glad Obama or Clinton was not in charge after 911. Bill Clinton did lob a few bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clinton’s war was In Serbia and Bosnia, we are still there. We have never left Germany, Japan and South Korea. You can not have a policy of appeasement.
What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? The hijackers were from a country ENEMY to Iraq! Oh, I see … we invaded the hijackers’ enemy to so ingratiate ourselves with them that they will like us now. NOT!
He called it a “dumb war” in 2002, and he was right.
But the full-on propaganda blitz convinced many people that it wasn’t, and the politicians fell in line.
Would Senator Obama have resisted the tide, if he’d been there in 2002? Probably so–look at his colleague, Richard Durbin. He voted no, and said the voters of Illinois were thanking him.
Enough said.
“george” brings back an Oldie-but-Goodie –
“…fighting there is better than fighting here.”
And just how is that, “george?”
Would those 4,000 Americans be more dead if they died here instead of there? You remember “there.” An artificial country halfway around the world composed of three factions that have hated each other for a thousand years.
Yeah, right! Let’s send Americans (although, not “george,” mind you) to sit in the crossfire of the intevitable civil war!!
Let’s send Americans there for a hundred years (as McCain advocates)! Let’s spend $3Billion a week for a hundred of years simply because “george” thinks it’s okay!
Hmmm
Randy does not seem to have watched the same debate I did. Both candidates did well. Obama managed to restrain himself from attacking as he did when he started the brawl in the last debate.
But on points, Senator Clinton clearly won.
And let us remember that in the last debate it was Senator Clinton who broke the news that the bush administration is brokering a long time military presence in Iraq through a military agreement with that country. She called on the congress to stop him. Senator Obama should join that call.
“And she still can’t admit the vote was wrong!”
It wasn’t.
It was wrong fleettwood. She should never have entrusted any sort of discretionary power in the hands of Goerge WMD Bush.
While I’m not a Clinton fan, saying the vote was wrong NOW, with 20/20 hindsight, is more than a bit unfair.
She made a judgement, with the information she had at the time. I disagreed with the invasion at the time, but I can’t say how I would have voted had I been there. Neither can Obama say how he would have voted – he WASN’T there! Saying he was ‘right’ is in part a luxury he ges by virtue of not having to make that call.
I’m not, today, particularly concerned over whether X candidate was “right” or not then,I want to know what policies they propose to pursue NOW.
that’s ” . . . a luxury he gets . . . ”
I miss preview . . .
But on points, Senator Clinton clearly won.
I disagree, JR. Respectfully, of course. :)
I watched it twice.
Clinton was asked more initial questions than Obama. At times she was on target, at others she rambled. The majority of Obama’s answers and rebuttals (when she was asked first) were shorter and more to the point.
And then I listened to the remarks afterward. Bill Bennett kept assuring everyone that Hillary clearly won. I would expect that of him. The others were quite mixed on who won and who did the best job.
A tie, maybe? ;)
I thought they both had good ideas about national health care and how to fund it. I was glad to see that both had a plan. Too often, we don’t hear anything about that. Hillary often mentioned committees she had served on and bills she helped put together, showing her experience. She wins that point. Not sure if she stretched a little on those though, as I’ve not kept a scorecard. And the crowd was assuredly pro-Hillary.
In the end, it won’t matter who won or lost what debate. In the end, only the vote of the people (oh, and the archaic electoral college) will count.
Plenty of time to watch what happens over the next few months. Isn’t the convention in July?
Well, moveon.org has endorsed him now.
What do you democrats think about that?
http://moveon.org/press/pr/obamaendorsementrelease.html
He ain’t drawing no clear lines on anything. If you buy into that, I got a few charities for you to donate to. When and if he gets into office, he’ll talk the talk, but you won’t see any walking the walk. Besides, I want to see hillary get in thar and give the old Bill Clinton dance and tell us how she has tried but she just can’t keep any of those campaign promises. You go girl!
Actually, Nathan, I voted at MoveOn. Not that I’m a rabid member. I often send their emails to the delete folder, but some get a quick looksee. Hey, my vote counts as much as anyone else’s, so why not?
Have there been any real promises, Billy Bob?
It would seem that Obama has Nathan’s endorsement as well.
Nathan had better concern himself with his OWN nominee. I understand Ann Coulter is SO miffed with John McCain that she is prepared to endorse Senator Clinton if McCain is the GOP nominee.
Politics is getting damned confusing. Even for me the traveller from the far right to the middle left.
But I’ll tell you what I DO see. I see a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket depending on how the Dems see best to decide.
My preference is Clinton/Obama. But I can go with Obama/Clinton if Senator Clinton is cast into the Dick Cheney mold of a Vice President.
Let’s do this right and choose carefully. We ARE seating the next administration.
JR,
I don’t see an Obama/Clinton ticket, because Hillary is the “senior”, and I just can’t see her agreeing to play second fiddle to someone with less experience in the Senate.
Not real sure Clinton/Obama would work, either, because of Obama’s stated feelings about Clinton’s vote on the Iraq resolution.
But I’ve been wrong before. Once. Wait, make that twice. LOL
The Democrats don’t need to combine a ticket.
Seriously, how many of you Democrats here, will not vote for either Obama or Hilary if you were supporting the other?
When it comes down to it, if it is Obama or Hilary vs any Republican, will you not vote if your Democratic Candidate is not nominated?
“And she still can’t admit the vote was wrong!”
Unlike John Edwards. Though it took quite a while for me to forgive–or even understand– that particular lapse in his judgment.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2005/11/would_senators_/#comment-12693
I admire him now. Particularly when he told us not to give up the cause just because he’s not seeking the presidency.
Obama, of course, has had his own recent lapses in judgement, though they were only symbolic in nature–no one died when Obama. . used the cynical political games he decried (sorry, poets, that’s the best that came out).
I’ve read quite a bit about the man recently, and it was most enlightening–not that I have the key to the universe or anything, but still. . .more later.
Nathan,
To answer your question, last week, I would have voted for any of the three Dems running at that time. Edwards edged a little higher on the scale for me. His dropping out meant only that I would have to take a closer look at the other two. That is what I’m doing now. I will be casting my vote for either Hillary or Barack. A combined ticket would be nice, but I honestly don’t see it happening. No big deal.
Or it could be said in another way. There isn’t a Republican candidate that I would bother to do more than glance at, much less vote for. And believe it or not, that has nothing to do with party affiliation, but with what they bring to the table.
I am a Democrat/Liberal because that is the party that more closely aligns itself with my ideals and gives my ideals a name and label. I don’t build my ideals to match the party.
RD – I agree with you and will simply add that I HAVE looked at the Republican choices and reject them compared to the Democratic choices I have.
I cannot support Obama unless Senator Clinton is on board.
Obama calls to bury the hatchet. And I know who is holding the hatchet.
Obama reaches out to the religious right and that would be fine. EXCEPT that he reaches out to the haters in the religious right.
Obama asks me to turn my back on and forget my friends and work with my enemies.
Sorry. I can’t do that.
So to answer your question Nathan, I cannot vote for Obama who wants me to work with people like you UNLESS there is a check on him. That means a person who is willing to fight you and yours.
One Trackback
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog added an interesting post today on Obama draws clear line on IraqHere’s a small reading [...]