California Democratic Debate and other notes

It was a neat experience to observe the California Democratic debate last night. Right from the start, when the two candidates took their respective seats, every viewer could see that we were down to two candidates, a woman and an African-American. Regardless of who wins the nomination, we will have a first in American politics, as it will be either the first time in our history that we have a woman as a presidential candidate or an African-American as one of the final two candidates come November. That was a historical moment as the candidates sat down beside one another and I'm proud to have been able to witness it.

In regard to the debate itself, it differed a great deal from the harsh tone at the South Carolina debate. Both candidates performed well throughout and while there was some conflict here and there, the candidates didn't throw any low blows, such as the "Wal-Mart" or "Rezko" lines from the previous debate. While there were differences made between the candidates, in regard to health care and immigration, the two candidates both made good points to their cause and were much more specific than in previous debates. So, through the first hour, I'd say that neither candidate had an advantage in the debate, but that all changed once the topic switched to Iraq. While Obama looked poised and comfortable on the topic, in knowing that he was against the war from its outset, Hillary looked uncomfortable and wound up digging herself into a deeper hole. It appeared as if she didn't understand the Levin Amendment, which would have held off military action in favor of more diplomatic and investigative measure. Clinton refused to admit she had made a mistake, made some odd reference to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, which had analysts scratching their heads afterward. Obama was also quick to point out that the measure was labeled "Use of military action in Iraq". So, in other words, anyone who voted for the measure knew they were voting for war. As Rachel Maddow pointed out after the debate on MSNBC, Maddow was driving while listening to Hillary Clinton give her approval of the measure and Maddow was in tears. She (and others) thought Clinton's "reasoning" was complete nonsense. For Hillary to say that she basically didn't understand the amendment, it made her sound like an "idiot," as Maddow stated so eloquently. Clinton was basically defending the flawed intelligence for the war and it amazes me, as last night was the 18th Democratic debate, that Clinton has not found a better way to reason with the American people about her vote. There is an easy way to go about this, admit she made a mistake. She can either do that and say, "You know what? I was wrong. It won't happen again and as president of the United States, I will do everything in my power to avenge for that mistake and take this country into a positive direction again." That's it. It's either that or attempting to answer around questions by not admitting she made a mistake and actually giving credence to those that most Democrats aren't typically fond of. I think the debate was a draw in almost its entirety, except for when the Iraq War got brought up.

In the end, I don't think either candidate will earn a big boost due to the debate. I think Obama did slightly better and what he has to hope for is perhaps an expanded support from Latino-Americans based on some of his immigration talking points, he has to hope that the debate didn't slow down his momentum much, and has to hope that due to his immigration talking points, that it doesn't hurt him amongst whites and African-Americans. On Hillary's side, I think all she truly wanted to do was slow down Obama's momentum. She was fairly pleasant for the majority of the debate, made some good points, didn't low-ball Obama at all, and just hopes that it was good enough for her to hold onto the lead after Super Tuesday.

- In other news, it's sad for me to gaze about at the remaining Republican candidates, other than Ron Paul, whom honestly has no chance at winning the nomination. Mike Huckabee is personable, but with whom I don't agree with in regard to his policy ideas. John McCain was the only legitimate Republican contender whom I felt I could potentially vote for. But, I've lost some respect for the Arizona Senator in recent days/weeks. While I've never been a fan of Mitt Romney, in large part due to his negativity and smear tactics, McCain has been doing likewise of late. Both campaigns are pointing at the other, saying, "We're tired of the falsities," yet they must have a short-term memory, because their very own candidate partook in similar charades. I respect McCain as a human, but can't see myself voting for him, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. He keeps attacking Romney, claiming that the Massachusetts Governor said that we should set public timetables for the Iraq War, but that wasn't the case. John either needs to look a bit more closely at the actual quotes or to stop talking about it completely, because, to those that actually research what these candidates say and attempt to discover what was factual and what wasn't, they'll all come to realize that McCain's harping about Romney believing in public timetables is a farce. I can't stand Romney and I'm saying this. I'm now unsure on who I'm rooting for in the Republican Party, because I think McCain may be getting a bit old, senile, and delusional, especially in regard to the Iraq War. He's admitted that he's not too cognizant regarding the economy and that's Romney's strong-suit. With how our economy is in such disarray, it's difficult for me to choose between the two. Either way, the two need to stop with the name-calling ("liberal"), the attacks, and smears. If they keep that up for the general election and the Democrat remains above the fray, the Democrat should win with ease, because the public doesn't go for that, as Obama and Clinton learned from the South Carolina debate.

- The Clintons are drawing some more negative news in the past couple days. First was in regard to Bill Clinton's tie to the donor from Kazakhstan. Last night, there was a report that Phillip Rezko, the "slum landlord" that Hillary referred to in the South Carolina debate that had donated to Obama in the past, also has donated money to the Clintons in the past. Finally, a Hillary Clinton surrogate, Len Nichols, said this in regard to a recent Obama ad about health care, saying, "It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, (Illinois)... I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage."

I haven't heard too much about this in the mainstream news and the Clintons better hope it stays that way.