The Second Democrat Debate

by Mike on June 3, 2007

in Election 2008,Politics

The following is this conservative’s take on the Second Democrat Debate

THE WINNERS

SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED

The winner among the three frontrunners this evening was probably She Who Must Not Be Named. Her answers were designed to satisfy the base while not alienating those who will vote in the general election. She was largely successful early on but faltered toward the end. When compared to her rivals’ performances however, it is clear that SWMNBN was the winner among the top tier candidates.

Lady Macbeth came out swinging, rejecting John Edwards’ claim that the War on Terror is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan. She also had a great answer on gays in the military. While her opponents went on and on solely about discrimination, she tied her support for gays in the military to military effectiveness. She gave the example of Arabic translators being discharged for being gay at a time when there is a shortage of Arabic translators. By tying liberal policy to conservative concerns, she showed that she is thinking about the general election.

Although she has one eye on the general election, SWMNBN paid homage to liberal orthodoxy as well. She opposed making English the official language, citing such concerns as the need for multilingual ballots and government-funded translators. She gushed over the left’s renewed interest in socialized medicine and made clear that taxes would go up if she became President. What’s not to love if you’re a liberal?

On international issues, she chastised the Bush administration for not “talking” with our enemies. According to SWMNBN, the US spoke with the USSR. Therefore, we should talk with the holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad. Applying her backwards thinking to Iraq, she promised to end the war if she became President. Her current positions are the appeasement liberals expect in a candidate, but what about her past? She had some answers for that concern.

She claimed that she wouldn’t have voted for the war if she knew then what she knows now. She even went as far to say that what she really supported when voting for the war “coercive diplomacy.” That’s not a bad answer in a Democrat primary but could be problematic when she runs against the Republican.

I say that because her story on the Iraq War now appears to be the following. She relied on intelligence information from both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Then she voted for the war. Then she voted to fund the war. Then she took credit for voting for the war when Saddam Hussein was captured even though there were no WMDs in sight. Now she claims to be anti-war while her death eaters have the nerve to accuse Mitt Romney of flip-flopping. It’s almost as if she never heard of YouTube. But that’s a problem for after she’s crowned as the nominee. Tonight she did just fine.

Stylistically, her performance had its highs and lows. She delivered the only joke of the evening, which was at Dick Cheney’s expense. It wasn’t really a funny joke, but the freaks in Hollywood probably appreciated it. She needs to work on that laugh though. For a moment, I thought a hyena broke into the auditorium.

She Who Must Not Be Named had her highs and lows, but because her two chief rivals had only lows, I think she was the winner of tonight’s debate.

JOE BIDEN

The winner among the lower tier candidates was probably Joe Biden. Realizing that pretending to support the troops is only believable if you actually vote to fund the troops on the battlefield, Biden defended his recent vote in support of legislation which did just that. This would be a wise answer in a general election, but how would the base react to such wisdom? Biden was ready. He explained that he opposed the war and would end it if he became President. However because the Democrats don’t have the votes to end the war and troops will be in the field until Bush leaves, funding the troops will reduce the number of casualties that would have occurred without the funding. Biden’s answer showed that he was against the war but for the troops in the field. It was the most credible defense of that position I’ve heard in awhile.

Biden’s top priorities if elected would be to end the war in Iraq and focusing on Iran and North Korea. Biden’s answers in tonight’s debate served as a balancing act between what the freaks in his party wanted to hear and what the population at large would accept. Not a bad performance. Joe Biden actually sounds like a credible candidate at times, at least when his mouth doesn’t get in the way. Tonight it didn’t.

THE LOSERS

BARACK OBAMA

The big loser in tonight’s debate was Barack Obama. The empty suit’s answers showed that he is well, an empty suit. By admitting that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, Obama dug himself into a hole. At some point in this campaign, he is going to have to explain how he can seriously claim that he will fight Al Qaeda when he withdraws our troops from Iraq, which by his own admission is where Al Qaeda is. Have fun with that one Barack.

Some of his other statements were almost equally laughable. According to the empty suit, the fact that there have been no Al Qaeda attacks since in almost six years is not evidence of success in the war on terror. So an Al Qaeda success rate of zero on American soil in over five years is what? Maybe he should focus on another topic, like terrorist rights. He did that too when he complained about Club Gitmo and the lack of habeus corpus for terrorists. Nice priorities.

And what was that little temper tantrum directed at Wolf Blitzer? Of course the questions are designed to divide the candidates. It’s a debate. Maybe he should add CNN to his boycott list. Obama had an off night.

JOHN EDWARDS

This guy made several mistakes. He stood by his comment that the War on Terror is a bumper sticker slogan. He answered a question about Darfur by promising more money for education. He proposed giving Iran nuclear material but it would be fine because we would monitor them (hey it worked well in N.Korea so why not with Iran?). He didn’t remember who was on his Senate committees (he must attended a lot of meetings). He also delivered the lie of the debate when he claimed “I don’t know what a rich person is.” Polly Prissy Pants had a rough night.

THE OTHERS

Bill Richardson: He scored some points when he proposed a Hero Health Card which would give veterans access to a hospital of their own choosing. That trumped everything Obama said. Richardson performed well enough. It wasn’t remarkable but there were no major mistakes.

Chris Dodd: He was unimpressive. I don’t think raising taxes will lower the price of gasoline. Even Mike Gravel seemed to know that.

Dennis Kucinich was the joke this evening. What better way to dispel the notion that Democrats are in a “9-10 mindset” than to brag about his involvement in a 9-10 forum?

Mike Gravel was outstanding. I don’t think the Senators appreciated it when Gravel pointed out that they were also responsible for the Iraq War.

CNN’s debate coverage was good enough. The town hall segment was a little too Oprah for my liking, but at least most of the questions were relevant. In addition, seating the candidates by viability was pretty amusing. (the more viable candidates were seated in the center with Kucinich and Gravel at the ends).

Eight candidates were on stage and none of them are fit to be Commander in Chief. For this reason, the Republican Party also won tonight.

UPDATE:  Click here for a debate transcript.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Ryan June 4, 2007 at 9:24 am

I didn’t watch much of this debate, but what I did see was pretty crazy. Hidebound socialists and wusses abound, but then again, it was a Democrat debate.

Edwards is a permanent joke, laughably pretending to be a real, down-home American when he is that “powerful” he keeps going on about. O’Bama will fizzle by the Fall. He may have the audacity to hope, but he also had the audacity to compete against a Clinton. Richardson, who was the most digestable last time, showed some of his leftist colors on the borders and English. Like Mike said, Gravel was the brightest light tonight by pointing some uncomfortable things out about the lefty’s war position on stage.

Speaking of SWMNBN, she seems to be angling towards the general. If/when Algore gets inthis race, she’ll have to show her more obviously evil side to garner support from the kooks. She doesn’t need them now, but no one in the Democrat party is nearly the current political rock-star that Algore is at the moment amongst the loons. She’ll create more ad-material for the Republicans than we could even dream of having. So will he.

Reply

BillT June 4, 2007 at 11:49 am

And yet none of them understands the significance of the war in which we’re engaged. Ugh.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: