I had heard some analysis of the last Democratic debate before I actually saw it. Most of what I had heard seemed off!
People on the radio were saying that they were disappointed that Obama didn't attack Hillary. Hardly! His opening remarks were scathing and opened her up for the rest of the evening.
Which, by the way, seemed to be the focus of the debate. I agree with my husband that giving Hillary such fearsome attention empowers her campaign...but I also agreed with most of the criticisms. I think she's got a bit of the war disease George Bush has when it comes to assessing threats...and that she's a hawk despite her "diplomatic" rhetoric. The case in point is her very undiplomatic vote to define Iran's army as terrorists. Even if that's technically true, I think Biden was right about the dangerous message it sends to our enemies. The saving grace might be that even though she herself likes missiles a lot; her staff would probably (hopefully) be more diplomatic than she.
Another analysis I heard on NPR said that the differences between candidates was subtle and not important. For instance, they said there was little difference between getting troops out of Iraq and keeping troops in the region. No difference? So then these guys probably think there's no difference between compromising with HMOs and eliminating HMOs...or say, passing Bush's agenda or voting against Bush's nominees.
I seriously despise the way the press tries to manipulate our opinions of these people...just that facts or even just the policies, please.
3 comments:
Here's where I am, Pinks. For all of the reasons you are well aware of, I'm a Stop-Hillary primary voter. I'll vote for the candidate who, at the last minute seems best postured to upset Hillary. At the same time, I anticipate being very happy to vote for her in the general election. At this point I'm very happy to see her primary opponents bash her in the debates: it only makes her stronger. What I do not want to see, is Democrats piling on HRC with the same kind of bumper-sticker complaints the GOP is trying to stick on her, such as she's 'too polarizing'. I saw some of that by the back-benchers in this week's debate and it absolutely disgusts me. It reinforces the framing message the GOP pays big bucks to get out there. Democrats should not be giving them a hand on this.
I'm okay with the piling on. It makes her stronger.
I figure I'm just going to be voting for more wet noodles, but I'll vote for them. I actually had the notion that there was a possibility that Democrats could act with something somewhat resembling a spine after 2006. Oh well. At least Edwards looks good. I think I'm tilting towards Obama.
Post a Comment