South Carolina Democratic Debate

That was quite the interesting debate we had a couple nights ago in South Carolina amongst Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.



I will say that even though I've been more supportive of the Obama campaign than the Clinton one, neither Barack's Wal-Mart nor Hillary's slum landlord comments were necessary. I don't believe this about the debate's entirety, but those two lines definitely benefitted John Edwards and the Republican Party. There's no need for that. This goes out to both Clinton and Obama. They can slam one another's inconsistencies on their actual voting record all they want, but why bring up these red herrings, which take the viewers away from the issue being discussed? I hope those low personal blows came to a start and a halt on Monday night. We'll have to wait and see on that.



The rest of the debate was less personal, but just as fiery and combative. Clinton and Obama duked it out over Obama's Iraq War record, over his "Reagan" and "Republicans'" comments that he stated a week ago, on Obama's "present" votes while in the Illinois Legislature, "universal" health care ideas, etc.



Alright, like I said, what both Obama and Clinton did with their low personal blows, I don't agree with, but the rest of the debate? I grew angrier with the Clinton(s) and felt that both Edwards and Obama handled themselves in more of a presidential manner than Hillary.



First off, I found it laughable when Mrs. Clinton stated that Obama was difficult to debate with, because he always has an explanation for every criticism he receives. I find that very humorous, because, at least he attempts to clear the air with an explanation as opposed to her strategy, which is to answer an attack with another attack. Now, strategically, which is the better way to win over voters? I honestly don't know. But, from my perspective, I'd much rather hear a politician's clarification of a criticism than to hear them follow the critique up with an attack, not giving any kind of reason or rationale for what they were criticized. I also found it funny how Clinton claimed Obama can't take accountability for anything. Wasn't she the one who supported the Iraq War from the start and refuses to admit that it was a mistake to do so? At least Edwards can admit he made a mistake in voting to authorize the war. I respect his honesty much more so than her denial and fudging of the truth. At least he can look Americans in the eyes and say, "You know what? I made a mistake." So, how Hillary has any room to talk about another lacking accountability is beyond me.



I also found it humorous how she and Edwards attacked Obama in regard to his "present" votes. They knew that a "present" vote is different than not voting at all and is different than taking a pass, but more U.S. citizens don't know that. So, they knew darn well that Obama's "present" votes would present an easy target for them to throw darts at. Yet, ironically enough, Hillary has missed more votes than Obama has voted "present". To his credit, Obama didn't go after the New York Senator for that, but still, I thought that was pretty low by the two other candidates.



Partially to Hillary's credit, at one point, she did KIND of admit to making a voting mistake. She voted for a bill but claimed she hoped it didn't pass. There is some question in regard to her actual feelings about this, though, because most everyone knew going into voting for it, that it was very anti-consumer. There wasn't near as much ignorance going into the voting for that bill as there was for the U.S. Patriot Act back in October of 2001. So, if she is truly being honest, I will give her credit for honesty in admitting a mistake here.



Hillary and Edwards tag-teamed again when it came to their health care plans, stating that their plans were both universal and Barack's was not. I've been curious in researching the differences in the three's plans and dissecting them. Well, we're not going to know until it happens, so right now, it's partially speculatory. BUT, many analysts who've thoroughly dissected the three plans actually believe that, in the end, Obama's plan will cover more Americans than either Clinton or Edwards'.



Clinton refused to back down with how she and her husband fudged statements regarding Barack Obama's views on the Iraq War and also his commentary on Ronald Reagan and Republicans. The Clintons and Edwards were all over Obama directly following his claim that Reagan was a transformational figure in politics during his tenure, whom was able to reach out to Independents and Democrats, who may have disagreed with him in some respects, but were willing to push those disagreements to the wayside in favor of the president's overall agenda. Obama didn't say he was a Reagan follower, that he voted for the former president, or anything of the sort. It's obvious that Obama wants to attract Independent and Republican voters. He's trailed Hillary amongst Democrats, so he felt this was the best way he could gain ground in the polls and in the end, earn the Democratic nomination.

The Clintons' criticism of Obama not having enough experience was legitimate. Experience isn't always the top priority of a boss, or in this case, the American citizens, but it does always play a factor. Some people are more willing than others to take a chance on the new kid on the block, because they feel the kid holds more potential than the other, while others will bypass that potential in favor of the more experienced individual, whom may hold more stability in the employer's eyes. But, like I said, it's a legitimate criticism on Obama. Why the Clintons went from a legit criticism to stretching the truth time and time again, utilizing tactics that Karl Rove would be proud of, is beyond me.

What kind of affect will this debate hold on the three candidates and the perception of them? I'm only one voice, so I couldn't say with much accuracy what the overall impact will be. From my perspective, it hurts Hillary, helps and hurts Obama, and helps Edwards. Edwards was the odd man (person) out in this debate. While Hillary and Barack were getting on one another's case, Edwards was over by his lonesome, drinking water, and looking like the mature candidate of the group. Unfortunately, for him, I don't see this "maturity" aiding him enough to place him back in contention for the democratic nomination. Some of the attacks on Obama may have provoked further questioning by the public, especially in regard to his "present" votes. So, that may hinder him, until he's able to thoroughly explain to the public a good deal of background information in regard to the process and persuasive reasoning on why he voted in the manner he did. But, at the same time, I think Obama earned some more believers, because for the first time throughout his campaign, he showed a fight. He didn't just shake his head at Hillary's accusations, but actually fought back. I do think Hillary was hurt in this debate. Most of American, who pays any attention to politics, had heard Obama's statements regarding Reagan and republicans. When he explained himself on Monday night and took a few shots at the New York senator and her husband, saying such things as, "Sometimes I don't know who I'm running against" and "some people will say anything to win," I think this reminded some people of how notoriously dishonest the Clintons are. This may have reminded them of the Lewinsky scandal, where former President Bill Clinton valiantly stated, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" It also showcased how Hillary Clinton rarely, if ever gives an explanation to a criticism. She just goes on the attack following a critique. This may have put further doubt in the minds of some who were on the fence of whom to support.

Sadly, when John Edwards stated, "Are there not three people in this debate?" Sorry John, but, following the South Carolina Primary, I have a feeling there will only be two. So, I will treat the following commentary assuming that much. While Obama seems to be competitive in the southeast, some atlantic coastal states, and a few others, including his home state of Illinois, according to the polls I've seen, Hillary Clinton has the edge at this current juncture. In saying that, I think an Obama victory and a convincing one at that in the South Carolina Primary, will be critical. He needs a boost, some momentum heading into Super Tuesday. Between the South Carolina Primary and Super Tuesday, I think Obama needs to get back on his game. Bill and Hillary Clinton have taken him out of his rhythm. With all of the falsities they're spewing onto the public, Obama has spent more time responding to these lies, in attempt to clear his record, as opposed to telling the American people what he is truly going to do if/when he's elected president and why the people should vote for him. The media has also been spending too much time talking about the heavy black population in the South Carolina electorate, which has pushed some white voters away from Obama. The Obama camp needs to try to reach out to more than just young voters and African-Americans, because they're not going to be able to win the democratic nomination if they focus on those two groups of people. Hillary's dominating amongst women, whites, and latinos. Obama needs to close the gap amongst those three groups. He's running about even amongst men with Clinton. He needs to concentrate on women, as they play a larger part in the democratic electorate than men and he needs to make up some ground amongst latinos, especially in the southwestern states, such as California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. How he does this exactly, I haven't the slightest, but he'll need to find some kind of way to reach out to all democrats, regardless of their ethnic background, if he wants to have a shot at the presidential nomination come November.