Clinton vs. Obama: California Democratic Debate Firsts 1/31/08
And then there were two
And so it has come to this. With only three Democrats left in the candidate pool (hat tip, Mike Gravel), the donkey race has essentially narrowed to two historic figures, the first potential female and black Democratic presidential nominee. With party elders having bowed out early on (Biden, Dodd, Richardson), the torch has been passed to future of the Democratic party, and all eyes are staring at the glass ceiling for cracks.
Many Democrats are torn between the Clinton and Obama. In many ways, Clinton represents the Democratic party we’ve grown up with and supported: a progressive social agenda to pull us out of the dark ages, balanced budgets, concern for the middle class, strong labor unions, livable minimum wage, shared responsibility for American citizens, and responsible regulation. Essentially the party of grown ups. Clinton is the fighting symbol of the Democratic party.
Obama represents something different, and evolution of the Democratic party. With soaring rhetoric of unity, Obama makes America feel better about itself; a welcome and desirable message after the long, dark years of the Bush family. Obama also appears to play well with independents and Democrats, even with the most liberal voting record in 2007. While Clinton wants to be the Democratic President, the anti-Bush, Obama wants to be the American President, the un-Bush.
For those who strongly support the principles of the Democratic party, this creates a conumdrum. Do I vote for the Democrats, or for America? Do I want a president who will espouse the responsible principles of the Democratic Party, or one that will work for compromise with moronic Republicans? Can’t I have my cake and eat it too?
The risk of nominating Clinton is her polled unfavorables affecting her electability. We might get our Democratic spear, but miss the target. The risk of nominating Obama isn’t his inexperience, it’s his message of unity. Do we really want the types of compromises he suggests, the radical compromises with a Republican agenda that so obviously hurts America?
Could Obama’s evenhandedness be his Achilles’ Heel?
Clinton has made no such promises. Oh she promises to work across the aisle, but she has stated many times that she will not compromise on cornerstone party principles.
Clinton will fight for Democratic principles. Obama will try and merge those principles with Republicans. Which would you rather see in the White House? The fighter or the uniter?
Let’s see what insight more debate firsts bring.
Debate Firsts
- First to say Clinton “has always been good with the beer crowd”: CNN reporter Candy Crowley comparing the well-educated, “wine” supporters for Obama, and the lower socio-economic “beer” supporters for Clinton.
- First to be introduced: Sen. Hillary Clinton
- First to clap for himself: Sen. Barack Obama
- First to wear a purple tie: Obama (a symbol of blue and red united?)
- First to get an applause: Obama
- First to mention foreign affairs: Clinton
- First to mention former Sen. John Edwards: Obama
- First to take notes with a red pen: Clinton
- First to take a drink of water: Clinton
- First to raise his hand over his chin: Obama
- First to mention Massachusetts: Obama (how sly with the Kennedy endorsement)
- First to touch his mouth: Obama
- First to say ‘core Democratic value’: Clinton
- First to say ‘we as Democrats have to fight’: Clinton
- First candidate to say future health care negotiations should be broadcast on C-SPAN and not behind ‘closed doors’: Obama
- First to say everyone needs to have health insurance: Clinton
- First to bring up Ted Kennedy: Obama (oh he couldn’t help it)
- First to say the health insurance industry is ‘very clever’: Clinton
- First to say Sen. John McCain’s ’straight talk express’ has lost its wheels: Obama
- First to mention foot amputations: Obama
- First to say the audience is well dressed: Obama
- First to count on his fingers: Obama
- First to mention meat processing plants: Clinton
- First to say we need a comprehensive immigration reform: Clinton
- First to say moderator Wolf Blitzer is trying to ‘push’ [words into my mouth]: Obama
- First to mention the Statue of Liberty and Jesus Christ in the same answer: Clinton
- First to say farmers are hard working: Clinton
- First to say illegal immigrants should be allowed to have driver’s licenses: Obama
- First to say illegal immigrants should not be allowed to have driver’s licenses: Clinton
- First to mention Gov. Bill Richardson: Obama
- First to say we need a united Democrat Party: Clinton
- Break
- First to say Clinton has a ‘terrific [political] record’: Obama
- First to mention Macedonia: Clinton
- First to say Gov. Mitt Romney’s investment in his campaign hasn’t paid off: Obama
- First to say ‘nuts and bolts’: Obama
- First to say she regrets there is a Bush in the White House: Clinton
- First to say running for president is humbling and grueling: Clinton
- First to say it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush: Clinton (that statement received the largest and loudest audience response yet)
- Break
- First to say ‘irresponsible abdication’: Clinton
- First to say ‘we’re having a wonderful time’: Clinton
- First to give the most comprehensive reasoning for the Democratic argument for withdrawing troops from Iraq: Clinton
- First to mention sand: Obama
- First to say ‘I believe in coersive diplomacy’: Clinton
- First to say President Bush sent soldiers to war without body armor: Clinton
- First to say Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniac: Clinton
- First to say ‘Senator, we do the plugs here’: Moderator Wolf Blitzer (jokingly) to Sen. Clinton
- First to take off his microphone: Obama
- End Debate
[flv]http://garlinggauge.com/videos/obamachivalry.flv[/flv]
And the winner? While Obama helping Clinton out of her chair goes a long way, I got to give it to Clinton with her knowledgeable and sophisticated answers.
What do you think?
More Debate Firsts
images: http://www.cnn.com/, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/obama-clinton-strike-gen_n_84342.html
Stumble it!
As a middle aged American of African decent , jobless and mad going from 5OK per year struggling with a small business to nothing.Who cares enough to give me a job to help me keep my bills paid and to keep my head above the water and give me an equal opportunity to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.Worked 28
years and who cares.
Felix L. Carter
Fayetteville, TENN.
A Town With Problems
Mr. Obama for President, Mrs. Clinton for Vice President. Amen.
Clinton for president, Obama for Vice.
Both have good ideas. One is more realistic and more experienced. Gender should not be a concern.
If you personally owned a world-renowned deluxe resort - a multi-million dollar playground for celebrities that made you ultra rich, famous and you needed a president – the top CEO to run it all… To manage the staff of hundreds, make all the important decisions, keep it growing, thriving and expanding… help you in your endeavors to build another equally as wonderful at a new tropical location by totally taking over the responsibilities of this one while you worked on the new one … and you read several resumes for the job - who would you hire – who would you trust with, basically your livelihood?
You’ve narrowed it down to three applicants and they are:
Applicant One:
A man who spent two years working in a fast food joint and then, because there was basically no competition, got a better job as a porter at a Quality Inn Hotel and had been there for one year when he stopped showing up for work so he could apply to be the manager of your deluxe resort. He clearly has no experience with the industry that would qualify him - however, he does say in his cover letter than he will “change” your deluxe resort and work with all employees and even neighborhood hotels big and small to make great changes …
Applicant Two:
Was married to a man who ran a Motel 6 for a bit, but the owners really didn’t like him much so wouldn’t recommend him to anyone who called for references… later, he got a job at a nice hotel for a while, but she didn’t really have a role there - mostly just hung out with his peer’s wives for tea and asked him how his day went when he came home at night. Since he was sort of a playboy, they fought so much toward the end of his employment there; she didn’t really even bother with him or his job. To her own credit, she moved out of the old neighborhood where the people living around that motel 6 remembered they couldn’t stand her or her husband and found a place where there were lots of people like her and applied for a job at a Quality Inn, (like the first applicant). She worked there as a porter, (and average porter who really didn’t do anything special) for four years, but the two following years, rarely showed up for work so she could apply for this position. Her background check was shady at best and the things she promised to do as the wife of her hotel manager husband never got done. To her credit again - she tells you in her cover letter that she has 35 years of hotel running experience - making her the best candidate for the job… (She’s got balls for sure!)
And…
Applicant Three
Is a man who has run a 5-star hotel for 12 years and did a good job. He did it all at this nice hotel — he worked in marketing, finances, ran a large staff of employees, made policy changes that improved the hotel and knew what it took to run a major hotel successfully. Prior to that, he served in the hotel industry as a major distributor. In his cover letter he mentions the financial programs, the social programs and marketing programs that he set up for his employers that turned out to be more than positive for the hotel — guests returned more often and gave wonderful reviews —- important guests from other countries learned of it and stayed there when in the states… His references were great, the owner loved the job he did there…
So… Who to hire —- Applicants one or two with basically no experience in running any size of hotel, big or small - but they have had a year to four years as porters in a hotel - average porters, nothing special – still new to the porter jobs — BUT - they both think they are the best things since sliced bread and after all, how hard could it be running an entire multi-million dollar deluxe resort hotel — they’ve been porters for few months for goodness sake —
Or applicant number three - who has run a large hotels and helped make them prosper — has had years and years of experience running hotels and in the industry…
Who would you hire and trust your famous, world renowned deluxe resort to?
It is a disappointment to have the two leading candidates for president be two people who have no executive experience – they haven’t even run a small company – and they are the best the democrats have to run our entire country? These were the two the democrat party backed, pushed and thought would be great? Those with any experience dropped out of the race because the Clinton machine and money were just too much for them… And that’s what we want, the winner of the primaries to be the one with the most money or the most charisma? My Gosh – this is the entire country we are talking about – these two are not experienced no matter what they say — Why did this happen to the party and where are those democrat leaders who actually have led a state or at the least been in congress for a few full terms? I’m sorry if this bugs you, but this is a democrat shame… a total disgraceful shame.
Linki,
Mitt Romney is a pandering, selfish opportunist.
He has stated that attacking countries that do not attack us is good policy, that the largest tax cuts should go to those who need it the least, that pro-choice laws should be abolished, that what constitutes a family can only be what his religion decrees, that the poor in our society are not helped by well-researched social programs, and that Democrats value government over people, which is a blatant lie.
This man is awful. The only reason he is in the race is his looks, money, and flip-flopping that helped him stave off criticism until now.
Choosing a president is about choosing the person with the best vision and ability to formulate and produce solutions to national problems. Mitt Romney, like the other Republicans this election cycle, hold the potential of America back. Moreover, anyone who thinks the presidency controls (or should control) the economy is ignorant of basic economics.
Yes, Biden or Dodd could have been preferable choices, but the wind is at the Democrats back, and they are voting for a social change at the top by choosing a qualified woman or African-American. The ‘trickle down’ social progress that would come to pass due to the election of either of these individuals is exciting, historic, and good for the country.
Mitt Romney would be a terrible president.