This was a "debate lite". The moderators did not ask tough questions and the candidates did very little to differentiate themselves. This is perhaps an indication of how well crafted their positions are. In terms of the process of electing the Democratic candidate for president, both candidates have been able to craft political and rhetorical positions
The best portion of the performance by Clinton was the close where she demonstrated the ability to acknowledge her opponent as a quality candidate. Her worst act in the campaign was the attack portion. Who ever is in the back room of the Clinton campaign needs to acknowledge that her candidacy was injured from the start by the wide held sentiment that the woman is a conniving bitch. That is quite a different from considering her a shrewd politician. Personally, if anyone is interested, I believe she is a shrewd politician as opposed to the latter. She has a lot of work to do, as many successful women do - particularly when they are married to powerful men - to demonstrate that they are simply competent and confident. It is much harder for women than men and that in many ways is a sad commentary on society.
The Obama campaign needs to combat the "about words" insertion Clinton made when firming up her attack on the "plagiarism" claim that she hoped to use as a dagger against her opponent. Obama hit that out of the room with his "silly season" response. All of the candidates have used a considerable amount of recycled material and have made statement without fully attributing the remarks to a prior source. If someone is working in your campaign and they help you assemble speeches and material and they are not complaining about you using it - attacks of this type are pure political trash. If you don;t have anything nice to say don't say anything at all - attacks work, but many people are alienated by the attackers. This is a not a major issue. However, the Obama campaign needs to address the "about words" attribute and transition into "about substance". The GOP strategists are absolutely planning methods and creating materials that will show Obama or Clinton to be without substance and initially, particularly if the candidate is McCain, will need to focus on being dismissive of the candidate.
The Obama campaign and Clinton campaign are extremely substantive campaigns. Clinton and Obama are both moderates with heavy liberal tendencies, they will not need a great deal of support from Republican if they are successful in in the Presidential election, because they should pick up seats in the senate and congress. Obama does not need to introduce new policies, but he should talk more about numbers and go on the campaign trail with charts (indeed Clinton should as well), people, particularly semi-literate people, like myself, see charts as evidence of substance. McCain should start using some charts as well - at least if people are talking about his numbers they will have less time to talk about the Keating five and other lobbyists that are out there. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and particularly Obama, have less skeleton lying around that are associated with the offices they currently hold. McCain has a bunch. McCain has problems coming in a general election - and he needs to focus on the substance issue, because he is going to lose in the words - the man is less adept and verbal sparring and being on television does him few favors.
In the absence of Barrack Obama, this would be a cakewalk to the presidency for Clinton - because what is left of Republican candidate is weak and will prove to be extremely weak in the debates. McCain, is too liberal to rally the vote that he will need and where voters have liberal tendencies they will vote Democrat, because McCain has become too hawkish and is almost taking positions that thos with liberal tendencies will find to to be antiquated.
Well, to get away from Clinton bashing, because I am not a Clinton basher and on to the substance of the candidates, let me return to the previous comment about the "lite-ness" of the debate. The debate did little to distinguish the candidates for one another and did little to explore there histories. You can read the entire transcript on CNN at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/index.html
(There will be excerpts from this transcript below, so please attribute credit to CNN and its source(s).)
A question about Imigration Reform:
RAMOS: (SPEAKING IN SPANISH) Federal raids by immigration enforcement officials on homes and businesses have generated a great deal of fear and anxiety in the Hispanic community and have divided the family of some of the 3 million U.S.-born children who have at least one undocumented parent. Would you consider stopping these raids once you take office until comprehensive immigration reform can be passed? This is a good question ... immigration policy is a big deal ... and the use of the word undocumented as opposed to illegal is actually offensive spin to me, because an individual that has illegally immigrated to this country is an illegal immigrant and an undocumented worker. This sucks, but this is true. So since Ramos use "undocumented worker" as his spin let me rephrase what he wrote and put some spin on that too and see if it reads a little different while being reasonably the same.
RAMOS: (SPEAKING IN SPANISH) Federal raids by immigration enforcement officials on homes and businesses have generated a great deal of fear and anxiety in the Hispanic community and have divided the family of some of the 3 million U.S.-born children who have at least one ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. Would you consider stopping these raids that target ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THAT HAVE IGNORED US LAWS once you take office until comprehensive immigration reform can be passed TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS CAUSE BY PEOPLE WHO ENTER THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY AND USE RESOURCES TO WHICH THEY HAVE NO LEGAL CLAIM?
Hmmm... that looks a little different ... don't it. Let's check the response.... I'm going to strike through everything that is not a yes or no answer.
CLINTON: I would consider that, except in egregious situations where it would be appropriate to take the actions you're referring to. But when we see what's been happening, with literally babies being left with no one to take care of them, children coming home from school, no responsible adult left, that is not the America that I know.
(APPLAUSE) CLINTON: That is against American values. And it is... (APPLAUSE) And it is a stark admission of failure by the federal government. We need comprehensive immigration reform. I have been for this. I signed onto the first comprehensive bill back in 2004. I've been advocating for it: tougher, more secure borders, of course, but let's do it the right way, cracking down on employers, especially once we get to comprehensive immigration reform, who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages for everyone else.
I'd like to see more federal help for communities like Austin and others like Laredo, where I was this morning, that absorb the health care, education, and law enforcement costs.
And I personally, as president, would work with our neighbors to the south, to help them create more jobs for their own people. Finally, we need a path to legalization, to bring the immigrants out of the shadows, give them the conditions that we expect them to meet, paying a fine for coming here illegally, trying to pay back taxes, over time, and learning English.
If they had a committed a crime in our country or the country they came from, then they should be deported. But for everyone else, there must be a path to legalization. I would introduce that in the first 100 days of my presidency.
A lot of talk but no answer. This is a Senator from New York - a lot of immigrants in New York .. but of course they are debating in Texas.
Let's check Obama...(same strike through rules).
OBAMA: There are a couple of things I would add. Comprehensive immigration reform is something that I have worked on extensively. Two years ago, we were able to get a bill out of the Senate. I was one of the group of senators that helped to move it through, but it died in the House this year. Because it was used as a political football instead of a way of solving a problem, nothing happened.
And so there are a couple of things that I would just add to what Senator Clinton said.
Number one, it is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly.
Oftentimes, it has been directed at the Hispanic community. We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate as it has been conducted in Washington, and that is unacceptable.
We are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants, and we can reconcile those two things. So we need comprehensive reform...
(APPLAUSE)
... we need comprehensive reform, and that means stronger border security. It means that we are cracking down on employers that are taking advantage of undocumented workers because they can't complain if they're not paid a minimum wage.
OBAMA: They can't complain if they're not getting overtime. Worker safety laws are not being observed.
We have to crack down on those employers, although we also have to make sure that we do it in a way that doesn't lead to people with Spanish surnames being discriminated against, so there's got to be a safeguard there.
We have to require that undocumented workers, who are provided a pathway to citizenship, not only learn English, pay back taxes and pay a significant fine, but also that they're going to the back of the line, so that they are not getting citizenship before those who have applied legally, which raises two last points.
Number one, it is important that we fix the legal immigration system, because right now we've got a backlog that means years for people to apply legally.
(APPLAUSE)
And what's worse is, we keep on increasing the fees, so that if you've got a hard working immigrant family, they've got to hire a lawyer; they've got to pay thousands of dollars in fees. They just can't afford it. And it's discriminatory against people who have good character, we should want in this country, but don't have the money. So we've got to fix that.
OBAMA: So we've got to fix that.
The second thing is, we have to improve our relationship with Mexico and work with the Mexican government so that their economy is producing jobs on that side of the border.
And the problem that we have...
(APPLAUSE)
The problem that we have is that we have had an administration that came in promising all sorts of leadership on creating a U.S.- Mexican relationship. And, frankly, President Bush dropped the ball. He has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not seen the kinds of outreach and cooperative work that would ensure that the Mexican economy is working not just for the very wealthy in Mexico, but for all people. And that's as policy that I'm going to change when I'm president of the United States.
There was no "Yes" or "No" response on a straight question, that was asked clearly. That is aggravating. Still can't understand the reason for all the applause.
I agree that it is a complicated issue, but either the answers is "YES" and the laws need to be enforced or we should layoff all persons in the INS, Border Patrol, Homeland Security, and other agencies of the government assigned to this function by the government and paid with tax dollars to carry out enforcement actions. This is the nature of pure rhetoric. Especially considering the fact that these candidates have health initiatives that are based on the enrollment of practically everybody and everyone paying for everyone else's problems essentially on the basis of need.
The Republican candidate will be in a tougher position - because American business indirectly benefit from illegal labor as do many citizens in red states, particularly the ones who frequently purchase labor intensive services such as concrete, home remodeling, homebuilding, and labor for manufacturing and harvesting. The Republican will have blue-collar conservatives saying ship them out and many business people will do the math and realize that in the absence of the illegal labor displacing there will be an overall reduction in the ability to produce in a cost effective manner and keep the cost of living down across the board. Somebody has to do that work and it needs to be done for the current prices or less.
|
