A Few Comments Of Note About The Democratic Debate From Around The Net

by John Hawkins | January 16, 2008 11:40 am

“Their discussion constituted a repudiation of the old Boss Daley of Chicago, who famously said that politics ain’t beanbag. Apparently politics is beanbag, because that’s all the Democrats threw at each other tonight. I’ve seen more conflict at a pacifists’ stir-fry.

…Hillary Clinton and John Edwards disgraced themselves in the minds of debate-watchers everywhere. At some point in each campaign, candidates are asked to name their greatest weakness. Only the lamest political hacks answer that question this way: Goshdarn it, I just care too much. I am too impatient for good things to happen.

Giving that answer is an insult to the art of politics. And yet Edwards and Clinton both gave that answer. They didn’t even give artfully disguised versions of that answer. They gave the straight, unsubtle kindergarten version of that answer. Obama, honestly, admitted that he’s bad at organizing his paperwork. Truly, here is a man willing to stand for change.” — David Brooks[1]

“You have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy.” That line from earlier in the debate has stuck in my head for over over an hour now. That’s why Hillary wants be president? Inspiring. (Never mind where exactly she has the experience to do such a thing….) ” — Kathryn Jean Lopez[2], The Corner

“Out of the blocks NBC hosts Brian Williams and Tim Russert are nailing the candidates on their racial infighting this past week.
The candidates are putting on a love-fest for the crowd.
(Don’t believe it, Barak! Watch your back!)

…Hillary seems to be glaring at Obama. She is not very warm tonight… Maybe, a supporter could ask her about her hair so she can break down in tears.

…Obama accuses Hillary of fear-mongering to close the debate.
That was sweet.
The video is great- just watching Hillary glare at him.” — Gateway Pundit[3]

“Will anyone give Edwards the Mitt treatment for saying he “saw young men sit at a lunch counter” to integrate the South?

…This is a high-def root canal: The questions are all about campaign attacks, and the candidates are pathetically trying to shift the conversation to policy. Clinton’s asked about her Obama attacks: “What are the consequences of that in the fall against a Republican candidate?” How the hell would she know?” — David Weigel[4], Hit & Run

John Edwards is asked about energy. He opposes building new nuclear power plants but also opposes US exploration and exploitation of new domestic fossil fuel sources. Leaving…what, exactly, to provide for our growing energy needs? Edwards favors the usual liberal bromides, biofuels, wind and solar. But left out of his answer is that increasing biofuel use is both inefficient (you have to put more energy into creating the biofuel than you get out of it) and puts more pressure on our food supply, which will drive up the price of staple foods. Solar hasn’t yet become efficient enough to become a dominant energy source, and the large windmills that are necessary to increase wind power use create their own environmental issues and are opposed for aesthetic reasons by liberals like the Kennedy clan. Edwards ends up opposing even doubling the number of worldwide nuclear power plants if that were possible, because it would “only” deal with 1/7th of the world’s greenhouse gas problem. But isn’t that quite a lot of capacity and quite a lot of effect on greenhouse gases that Edwards would unilaterally turn down?

And Edwards even opposes building new domestic coal fired power plants, not for any energy reason, but for environmental reasons.

The other silly part of Edwards’ answer is his insistence that the oil companies have a stranglehold on US energy policy. The fact is, we’re not exploring and exploiting all of our potential domestic resources, and we’re allowing the Cubans to allow the Chinese to explore oil sources 50 miles off our coast. The oil companies are wealthy and they are powerful, but it’s hard to factually argue that they have a stranglehold on our energy policies. We haven’t built new oil refineries in the US in decades. We can’t explore ANWR even though the people of Alaska favor that. We’re not building oil drills off the coast of California and Florida. All of that is tied to environmentalist concerns, not the oil companies, and that’s the reason we are so dependent on foreign sources of oil.” — Bryan, Hot Air[5]

“A yawn. A lovefest. Call it what you want, but by all accounts it was a less than electric affair. I guess that’s what happens when you silence Dennis Kucinich.

Nevertheless, with Mitt Romney’s win in Michigan dominating the national headlines and cable coverage, the Democratic debate was a non-event.” — The Las Vegas Sun[6]

  1. David Brooks: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/republicans-brawl-democrats-yawn/
  2. Kathryn Jean Lopez: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVhY2U3YWI3ZmE3MjFiNzA1YTgyNTUxMjIxNjUwNjI=
  3. Gateway Pundit: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-racial-nevada-debate-2008.html
  4. David Weigel: http://reason.com/blog/show/124421.html
  5. Hot Air: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/16/videos-john-edwards-is-a-luddite-barack-obama-promises-to-end-waste-storage-at-yucca-mountain/
  6. The Las Vegas Sun: http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/01/the_demzzzz.html

Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/a-few-comments-of-note-about-the-democratic-debate-from-around-the-net/