The Debate last night Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Leave it to me to end up staying in a hotel that didn't carry MSNBC last night (which on most nights isn't a problem at all since I rarely watch it). So I missed the debate. But reading through the transcript right now I found this little nugget from Sen. Clinton about her mandated health care:
And what I find regrettable is that in Senator Obama's mailing that he has sent out across Ohio, it is almost as though the health insurance companies and the Republicans wrote it, because in my plan there is enough money, according to the independent experts who've evaluated it, to provide the kind of subsidies so that everyone would be able to afford it. It is not the same as a single state trying to do this, because the federal government has many more resources at its disposal.
As Maxwell Smart might say, "Ah, the old "federal ATM" ploy.
All that Clinton promises here is that initially she has the resources to get her plan off the ground. But, as a matter of fact, she can't promise any different results than say, the MA plan because her plan isn't different by design, only by scale (and that includes the scale of the resources available to it).
This was one of the poorer excuses of the night in my estimation:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I've had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.
And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There's been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, "I might have been a little exuberant." Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?
SEN. CLINTON: No, Tim, because what happened in 2000 is that I thought Al Gore was going to be president. And when I made the pledge I was counting on having a Democratic White House, a Democratic president who shared my values about what we needed to do to make the economy work for everyone and to create shared prosperity.
So we went through a period of years with sustained economic growth and the creation of millions of jobs, and it is Al Gore's fault for losing the 2000 election that Sen. Clinton delivered a loss of 30,000 jobs (yes, I'm holding her responsible since she'd gladly take credit if those 200,000 jobs she promised had materialized)?
Here is probably the most telling and important point made by Hillary Clinton sure to resurface when Obama faces John McCain:
But I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.
Or, when given an opportunity to actually expand my knowledge in foreign affairs and the role of NATO, I opted to run for President and ignored those duties.
Hard to argue any real foreign relation experience with an admission like this.
Clinton looked a little silly on the income tax record question and Obama stumbled around on the Farrakhan denouncement. Neither incident was particularly notable except for the bit of good theater they provided. Most of the rest of the debate was the standard modified stump speeches and accusations of mischaracterizations of their positions by their opponent.
But again, if this was supposed to be a Hillary break-out debate, it didn't happen. They're so similar on the issues that, in reality, they have little to debate. Spending the time on the issue of mandates for health care should convince anyone who watched it (or read the transcript as I did) of that. So it becomes a personality contest for many committed Democratic voters, and there's little doubt who is winning that.
Yep they are two solid candidates either one of whom can beat McCain barring massive screwups. I’ll take Obama as the least likely to royally blow it, and the most likely to be able to recover should such an unfortunate event take place.
"So we went through a period of years with sustained economic growth and the creation of millions of jobs, and it is Al Gore’s fault for losing the 2000 election that Sen. Clinton delivered a loss of 30,000 jobs (yes, I’m holding her responsible since she’d gladly take credit if those 200,000 jobs she promised had materialized)?"
Nope it is George Bush’s fault because he won the election. And we all know that if you run in an election you arent supposed to win it. Just ask Billary and she will tell you that (and is doing a great job of it so far).