The Democrat Party had a better stage and more excitement than the Republicans last night.
The Republican debate, set in the Reagan library, was backwards looking. The Democrat debate, at least the Obama side of it, looked young and energetic. All the style points go to the Obama-wing of the party over the Republicans.
On the other hand, the debate was between two candidates with policies which are open to genuine criticism by those who love liberty. The answer to every question was government and spending by both candidates. This was terrifying to me. More liberty is better than more government.
Government is “going to be on our side” according to the Democrats. I don’t believe it for constitutionalists, believers in limited government, and traditionalists. This was good reminder why those groups will have to vote for any of the Republican nominees.
They both seemed clueless about the War in Iraq, pandering to those stuck in last year’s reality.
This primary has pushed the Democrat Party to the left on certain key issues, like socialized medicine and immigration, that open a real opportunity to a Republican nominee with the communication skills to exploit them. For example, Clinton boasted about her work at a China conference the contents of which will not play well in Ohio.
John McCain does not have the rhetorical skills to exploit this chance. I believe the Mitt Romney I saw tonight on Fox does.
However, John McCain has a much, much greater understanding than either Democrat of foreign policy as it exists today. He is a war hero who opposes torture and who wants to win. Bluntly, both Obama and Clinton were too keen to pander to their audience which may have harmed them by their applause.
Bluntly, the “atmosphere” of the night may have looked good for the Democrat Party, but the tone was defeatist.
Winner:
Barack Obama-
Obama was talking to the nation, while Clinton spoke to the base.
I believe that the Democrats have a chance to elect their own “great communicator.” It might be that he can sell a platform that will be the most left of center in history. Nobody else can, certainly not Clinton.
Obama is a better speaker than debater, but he is in another league altogether as a communicator from Clinton. He speaks in punchy terms and seems sincere even when he is giving a old-style liberal rhetoric.
The difficulty is the electoral college where he proposed policies tonight including driver’s licenses for illegals that writes off too many states and an incoherent position on the War. At least forty percent of the country still supports the War and a big chunk of the rest will not want to lose . . . and will trust someone like John McCain to win it.
George Bush is not running for reelection and neither John McCain or Mitt Romney are associated with those parts of the War that are most unpopular.
I wonder if the easier climate of this year for the Democrats has not left them unprepared for the reaction outside of their media (they don’t do Fox) and academic bubble to what they say?
He has to be on the ticket (in one capacity or another) for the Democrats to win.
Hillary Clinton-
This was her best debate in some time, but that is not saying much.
Clinton has bad tone and is politically tone deaf for a general election. Her line about penalizing Jesus was absurd and she tends to fall into academic left-speak. She triangulates and then denies it. Obama won on points and style.
She cannot say “illegal,” but calls illegal immigrants “undocumented.” What does it mean? If I don’t pay my taxes, then am I an undocumented tax payer?
She was defensive and abrasive. If she had been running against a Republican, she opened herself up several times to tough criticism. She made it obvious that under a second Clinton administration the government would not be profitable.
Clinton does not take a hit well. Obama was easy on her, but he still seemed brittle at every charge.