Friday, February 12, 2016

DEMOCRATIC DEBATE - THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2016


The debate tonight was the best thus far in the presidential campaign, in no small part due to the excellence of Gwen Ifil and Judy Woodruff as moderators and that the sponsor was PBS.  The two asked intelligent, probing questions without venturing into easy gotcha territory.  The contrast between Democratic and Republican debates is stark.  What I saw on the stage were two adults engaged in a civil debate.  I admit that with only two candidates in the race, the appearance of a free-for-all is easier to avoid, but, even if the GOP narrows the field down to two, I doubt we'll see a debate of this caliber.

To me, Clinton looked strong and won the debate, though Sanders got in a few good licks about her vote in favor of the Iraq war and her reference to Henry Kissinger's compliment on how well she ran the State Department.  By now, Clinton probably hopes young people don't know who the hell Kissinger is.

Once again, Sanders answered a number of questions by turning away from the substance of the question to commentary about Wall Street, thus reinforcing the impression of a Johnny One-Note.  Of course, he is not, but, with the Wall Street repetitions, he's beginning to remind me of Young Marco Rubio and his repetitions about President Obama.  Clinton scored with the reference to Sanders' votes on gun regulations and his recent and not-so-recent criticisms of President Obama. Though Sanders often caucused and voted with Democrats, he remains a newly-minted Democrat.

Clinton appeared calm and composed, while Sanders seemed impatient and even agitated at times, waving his hands with his face turning red.  A number of people call Clinton cold, and I understand how calm can translate to cold, but I'm not looking for a BFF for president, and I prefer calm to agitation. When Sanders repeatedly raised his hand as a signal that he wanted to speak, I couldn't help but think, "Teacher, teacher!  Call on me!"

Both candidates favor health care coverage for everyone, but they have different approaches to get there.  Of Sanders' plan for a single payer plan, economist Paul Krugman notes that the numbers don't add up.

Also, while Sanders calls his plan "Medicare for All", it is no such thing because on his campaign website, he says:
As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges. 
Sounds great, but Sanders' plan is not "Medicare for All".  I know because my health insurance coverage is through Medicare, and I pay deductibles and copays, even with a supplemental insurance policy. So, is it "Medicare for All" or something entirely different?  Also, as Krugman notes, getting a single payer plan through the House of Representatives is likely to be a non-starter, even if Democrats regain a slim majority in the Senate.  The GOP will retain a majority in the House after the election because so many hold safe seats due to gerrymandered districts.

Clinton's health plan takes a more gradual approach, building on Obamacare to universal coverage, rather than replacing it and starting from scratch. Though there is no guarantee that her plan will pass in Congress if Clinton is elected, it seems somewhat more possible and definitely more realistic.

Clinton's closing statement was powerful and served to define her campaign.  A quote is below:
We agree we've got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck main street again.

But here's the point I want to make tonight.  I am not a single-issue candidate and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it's poison in the water of the children of Flint or whether it's the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and depressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the lgbt community against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that's what I want to take on.
 
Below is a quote from Sanders' closing statement, which also defines his campaign.
This campaign is not just about electing a president. What this campaign is about is creating a process for a political revolution in which millions of Americans, working people who have given up on the political process, they don't think anybody hears their pains or their concerns.
 Young people for whom getting involved in politics is as, you know, it's like going to the moon. It ain't going to happen. Low income people who are not involved in the political process.
 What this campaign is not only about electing someone who has the most progressive agenda, it is about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and not just the 1 percent, who today have so much economic and political power.
Yes, "like going to the moon."  In the real world, the only revolution we're likely to see in the near future is if Republicans take the presidency, the majority in the Senate, and the majority in the House (which is certain), and it will not be pretty.

Keep in mind that when Sanders first entered the race, I favored his candidacy and contributed to his campaign, but, over the course of time, I've come to favor Clinton.  I still believe that having Sanders in the race is a net positive, but I hope the supporters of the two candidates don't tear each other apart before the election.  From my experience, Sanders supporters have been much more intemperate in their criticism of Clinton and her supporters than the other way around, even to the point of declaring that if she is the nominee, they will not vote, or they will vote for Trump.  That, in my opinion, is madness.  The stakes in this election are high, and the country will be in a very bad way with Republicans in control of Congress and the presidency.  Make no mistake: If Sanders is the nominee, he will surely have my vote.

19 comments:

  1. A friend, admittedly one who is on a different income level than me and at least 20 years younger, who calls himself a democrat, today posited that if Sanders were elected that 60% of his income would be taken in taxes. That seems a little excessive. I would have thought he had a better grip on the tax situation....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And thanks for your excellent statements. I too noticed the hand waving, and not answering the questions directly...

      Delete
    2. Thanks, susan s. I doubt the tax rate would be that high, but Sanders' plans sound like pie in the sky. Clinton is careful in her promises, which I think is a good thing, since we all see that Republicans don't care to govern at all with a Democrat in the White House. There's nothing wrong with having a vision for the country, but it has to be somewhat grounded in reality.

      Delete
    3. Well stated, June. One thing is certain. Hillary Clinton has more experience in international affairs than the sum total of all the other candidates. I think Hillary and Bernie both want the same things. To me, the main difference is between Bernie's sense of urgency to make change and Hillary's slow incremental approach. Bernie speaks to my heart in that regard, and Hillary comes of as somewhat patronizing. I'm not sure it is possible to advocate a slow incremental pace without seeming patronizing because those advocating slow incrementalism don't usually seem to need the end goal. Remember the maddening patronizing comments about marriage equality being too much too soon?

      I'll happily vote for either of them as a presidential candidate. But at this point I haven't decided who will get my primary vote. I've been wavering back and forth. We have open primaries in my states, so I may decide to cast a poison vote in the Republican primary. I've done that before. But then they stamp "Republican" on my voter ID and I have to live with that until a new card comes along.

      Regarding all the nastiness from Bernie's side ... I'm not sure that's where it is all coming from. I suspect a good deal of it is the work of conservative tricksters masquerading as Bernie supporters.

      Delete
    4. Mike, in one debate, not this one, Sanders appeared gobsmacked and floundered when he was asked a question about Afghanistan, so there's no comparison in foreign policy knowledge and experience between the two. Of course, he can learn.

      Bernie had my heart, too, until his policies seemed less and less rooted in reality. I'm not certain where all the nastiness comes from, but at least some of it comes from real supporters of Sanders.

      I voted one time to "send a message", and I've regretted it ever since. Not that my vote changed the outcome, but I read an excellent article some time ago about why we should always vote for the person we want to win. I don't remember the name of the writer nor where I read the piece, but I've never voted a "message" again.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clinton has won me over, but in our state primary I may have to vote Republican in hopes that Trump does not win the nomination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ai-yai-yai! That's weird. Are you registered as an independent?

      Delete
    2. In Washington State we don't declare party at the time of registration.

      Delete
  4. Hillary. I think a winner in all ways. I think she can move mountains (forget the hills)...amazing debate, thank you for your wrap-up...we agree and I noted the same details you did...vamos a ver. Democrats Abroad is going to have a primary all of our own...I'll let you know the result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Len, I would not go that far, and I hope Clinton doesn't either. She should not raise expectations too far beyond what is possible. What converted me was, in part, watching long portions of the Benghazi!!! hearings. Then last night, her performance in the debate confirmed my switch.

      Geaux, Democrats Abroad!

      Delete
  5. If I didn't think Bernie's combination of "Socialist" (along w/ voting history), secular Jewish, and age 74 would be a DEADLY combination for the Dems in November (up ballot and down), finally, I think it's his temperment. I just don't see it in the Oval Office (or rather, I do: *too similar* to some of our really terrible recent Presidents).

    Naturally, I am loathe to go against what seems to be the consensus choice of young voters. But extending an equal opportunity "Feel the Bern!" attack on Hillary Clinton as on Goldman-Sachs (as if there's no difference!) seems, well, "cavalier" in the extreme (and yes, insensitive to the particular struggles of a WOMAN of her age-cohort, to get where she's gotten).

    Sanders is a classical PROPHET. While Christians may see Jesus as "Prophet, Priest and King", USUALLY one wants to keep "prophet" and "king" apart (so the former can critique the latter, while the latter makes the compromises necessary to Get Things Done: there's a dialectic between the two). Senator Bernie Sanders is a great man. And it's in the Senate, that is precisely where he should stay (ready to cast that convicting impeachment vote, if need be!).

    I'm with Hillary---especially so NOW, as Bernie has helpfully (if I'm sure painfully) influenced her...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JCF, I doubt whether Sanders can win in the general election, too. I was excited about his candidacy in the beginning, but then his policies and plans began to seem more and more unrealistic and lacking in detail about how he would get legislation passed to implement his policies. I am also pragmatic, and I want a Democrat elected president. Think of worthy legislation that Obama has presented to Congress, only to have it blocked, and what he saved the country from with the power of the veto. The last thing the country needs is for the Republican Party, dominated by far right wing ideology, to be in control of the presidency and the two houses of Congress.

      Delete
  6. Resisting the temptation to set down my impressions of the two candidates, I will say for now that I fear the possibilities of a 4-way race in November - metaphorically, if not in the literal sense, if Democrats are divided and thus weakened in their turnout, and the same happens on the Republican side, well then that would be a choice opportunity for someone with big bucks, a raging ego, and no morals to exploit, wouldn't it? A nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russ, I see all sorts of possible pitfalls ahead in the coming election. What's scary is that people I'd consider reasonably sane say that the only person who can fix the country is Trump. I'm finding it harder and harder to see how he will be stopped from getting the Republican nomination. Yes indeed, Democrats need to stick together and get out and vote for whoever is the nominee.

      Delete
  7. The stakes just got higher after the news about Scalia. If the Republicans manage to obstruct Obama's Supreme Court choice (shudder) we need a Democratic president to follow him. I'll vote for Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, indeed. Responsible Democrats stressed over and over, the importance of Supreme Court appointments for the next president, and now the reality is with us.

      Delete
  8. It was the only debate I've seen, since I gave up cable a few years ago, and all the debates (prior to this one) have been on cable.

    But I repeat myself.

    I was a soft Hillary supporter before the debate, but after it I realized Sanders is someone I'd elect to the Senate; Clinton is someone I want in the White House, behind the desk in the Oval Office. There really isn't any substantive difference between them, it seemed to me; it's more a matter of temperament.

    Sanders talked like a Senator; Clinton talked like someone who had seen the Presidency up close and knew better what the limits of the office are, and what the powers are. Your analysis of Medicare is an excellent example of my problem with the promises Sanders makes; and his supporters go out of their way to lambast Clinton while denying any criticism of Sanders can be valid.

    I know Hillary Clinton is not perfect. I'll vote for her despite the fact she can praise Kissinger. And now, with Scalia dead and a place on the Court open, it's more important than ever a Republican not win the White House.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rmj, I agree that Clinton was the candidate who looked presidential in the debate. What first drew me to the Clinton camp were the political skills, intelligence, and stamina that were very much in evidence during the 11-hour Benghazi hearings, in which she made fools of the 6 Republicans on the committee. I didn't watch all 11 hours, but I saw enough to be immensely impressed.

      Delete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.