Democratic Debate
 

I don't know if I will watch the last 30 minutes, so I'm curious if anyone else has been following tonight's debate between Clinton and Obama.

I cannot help but be struck by the fact that Obama has been hit hard on negative questions 4 times, while they have only hit Clinton negative once. Which, goodness knows she has more than enough fodder for negative questions. And, the first soft issues question that got flipped to either candidate has been to Clinton.

Am I wrong in finding the questions to be biased so far?

ETA:
I was surprised by one thing tonight. Clinton said that she would commit to 'massive retaliation' against Iran if it were to attack any one of a number of Middle Eastern countries. Obama only offered that type of protection to Israel. I looked on their respective websites, and found a blurb from Obama specifically about Iran but could not find any opinion from Clinton, beyond what she said tonight. I cannot help but feel that Clinton is supporting the kind of world police policy that has failed us the past 7 years. Maybe I am being naive and all candidates are going to threaten Iran with 'massive retaliation' should they make any agressive action, but I didn't think that was a democratic ideal. I wasn't aware that the democrats upheld the belief that we should police and protect the world. :(

Thousands of "save darfur" shirts beg to differ.

By all means, please show me a 'to save darfur we are threatening massive retaliation to anyone who messes with them' shirt, and I'll gladly agree with you.

I can't say that I follow you there.

I did not catch all of it, but what really astonished me was Hillary Clinton stating unequivocally that she would begin a withdrawal from Iraq even if the Generals in charge of the war effort strongly advised against it and told her that it would mean all the progress we had made would be lost.

For a long time, Clinton was very smart and reasonable in stating that she wanted to get out of Iraq but would wait and see all the facts available to her as President before making firm plans.

And I think we can all agree, regardless of what we feel about Iraq, that it is very reckless to make so firm a campaign promise on such a major and constantly evolving issue when the person making that promise is not yet in a position to know all the details and have to actually make a decision.

I think it shows her desperation, as did her many carefully crafted and controlled responses on the many Obama "scandal" questions which contained many direct jabs.

Contrast this with Obama refusing to "go there" and get dirty when the question of Hillary's gross lies about sniper fire during her landing in Bosnia as First Lady came up.

To the original poster- I agree Obama got hit with a lot of fluff questions about all the little press scandals going around, but that is just part of the game. He escaped that for a long time and so his time finally came to get hit with it. I thought his answer on the bitter rural voters question was pretty weak- but then again it is hard to back off a statement like that.

I do not think either candidate really stood out or changed their standing tonight- nor do I think it impacted the ultimate outcome.

Earlier today, a Clinton supporter was referenced on CNN as stating that if Hillary could get big wins (double digit I presume) in Pennsylvania and Indiana- and also cause an upset and win North Carolina- she still has a chance.

Talk about fantasy land. I think this thing is over unless the super-delegates all go for Hillary. But I don't see that now. She had a valid argument that she was more electable than Obama in a general election, but after the last 2 weeks I do not think that is true anymore.

You said "police and protect" didn't you?

I think going into Darfur, which a lot of liberals would support, qualifies under that.

You could certainly make the claim that policing and protecting is not a base democratic value, just as republicans will certainly argue that Neo-con interventionist policies are not traditional GOP values. However, there is certainly a significant portion of the the democratic left who supports the idea of policing and protecting the subordinated people of the world.

I was surprised that each of them said the other could beat John McCain. I don't see how that's possible, considering he is obviously immortal.

I was not impressed with the debate at all. I felt like a large majority of the debate was wasted with Obama struggling to refute all of the allegations/bad publicity as Pbear19 mentioned.

Hillary came off as desperate to win at any cost. Considering I come from a military family, as much as I oppose the war, I DO NOT think we should pull out and leave a big mess after 4000+ lives have been lost fighting. I think that would make us more vulnerable as a nation and more susceptible to another terrorist attack...but hey, what do I know :(

Hillary beat Obama but McCain came out ahead in this one. Obama had terrible answers to most of the questions and Hillary handled herself very well, especially on the Bosnia question.

The world will explode if there's another debate.

best believe there will be one more....i hear mars is looking good this time of year...

Correction: The Universe will explode if there's another debate. The Universe is already close to an end. Kadeem Hardison is in a new theater-released movie. :eek:

First time I've been online today, so let me clarify why I think threatening 'massive retaliation' against Iran is different from 'free darfur'.

One (to me) means the United States taking military action in no uncertain terms, being the physical agressor. The other means taking internationally-backed diplomatic action. I do not support US military action in Darfur, and I have not been under the impression that the majority of democrats support US military action there, either. I will absolutely concede I am wrong in that if someone can provide the tangible evidence.

I wholeheartedly disagree that we should be using agressive military tactics to push our individual country's agenda. If we choose to use negotiation, economic sanctions, peaceful organization, etc, acting in concert with the collective wishes of the UN, then I find that action to be acceptable. The promise of agressive military action by Hillary is what I found disturbing, and what to me is more in line with the current administration's foreign policy.

I understand what you're saying. Of course I fundamentally agree with your hesitation to use military tactics, but nevertheless I see where you're coming from.

I understand your willingness to accept more peace-driven interventionist policy, but I think it has a history of failure. We tried and failed in Lebanon (by failure, I don't mean our military, I mean our attempted role). We tried and failed in Somalia (same thing). The UN has been unbelievably inept in Somalia, Rwanda, and now Sudan. If you advocate intervention into one of these situations, US servicemen are going to pay with their lives. I'm not saying that there are no causes that may be worth it, but I am questioning whether tying their hands behind their back is blatantly irresponsible. My Marine buddies all joke about how they're gonna end up in Darfur with rifles unloaded and absurd ROE (Iraq isn't far off, really). Basically, I think it is easy to advocate one because it is much more palatable to do so, but reality is often a different story (and you probably know this, I'm just clarifying my view).

Fair enough. :) For my part, I would rather we be part of a peaceful international movement that runs the risk of ineptitude than to take any kind of military action when we are not in immediate danger ourselves. I strongly believe we have no business policing, save in the case that the action is specifically warranted and requested by the UN. Even then I don't like it, but I can stomach it.

ETA - in other words, I would rather see shitty things happen in the world because we don't step in with force, than to see us step in and have shitty things still happen, which invariably seems to be the case.