Pathetic

During last night's debate, Hillary needed to rescue her campaign. Going in, there were two questions: would she go after Obama and how would she change her message. The answer to the first came with the first question of the debate. Hillary went after Obama and accused him of changing his stances on key issues. Obama, who by the way has been the most consistent on his stances, parried these attacks with some stammers along the way. But then came the surprise: Edwards came to Obama's defense! And he did so aggressively. I've watched a lot of debates and I've watched a lot of debates with these candidates, and I don't think I've ever seen a candidate defend another candidate so strongly...and effectively. Clinton was caught completely off-guard, as well she should have. Edwards campaign is basically falling apart. His post-Iowa speeches have gotten even more bitter and angry. His only hope is to emerge as the true-reform candidate. To do that he would need to deal with his biggest competitor, the even more charismatic Obama. Yet, he sided with Obama and began throwing punches at Clinton. Unless Edwards is going for another VP nomination, which I find unlikely since neither he nor whoever wins will want to bring him back after his disappointing effort in the same role 4 years ago. Honestly, I can't think of a reason why Edwards would have done this, unless he just doesn't like Clinton, which is possible.

In any case, Edwards made Clinton look ridiculous and she quickly stopped that line of attack. Next came her new message: she was also the candidate of change, but she had the experience to get it done. I don't know if that message will work...I don't know if it will work in New Hampshire and I don't know if it will work with Democratic voters. All I do know is that it didn't work for me. While the idea of Clinton--that of a seasoned reformer--sounds good and I have no problem with it, unfortunately it has little relation to reality. Hillary has almost no political experience: after graduating with a legal degree, she went to Washington as an aide for the impeachment committee of Richard Nixon. She then married Bill and went to Arkansas where she worked with a children's advocacy group before joining a firm and becoming a legal consultant. During this time, she accumulated a small fortune while her husband furthered his political career, making profits from several investments and even sat on the board of directors at Wal-Mart and TCBY. She continued her triple life as legal representative-child/education advocate-wife of a successful politician until her husband was elected president in 1992, after which she devoted herself full-time to politiking and being a First-Lady. While Clinton may have been the most prominent First-Lady since Edith Galt (wife of Wilson), to pretend that everything her husband did was part of her doing is a bit of an overstatement. Undoubtedly, Hillary's counsel was valuable, but what made Clinton such a powerful politician was his natural charm. In 2000, as her husband left office, Hillary became senator of New York. It is the only political office she has ever held. While Clinton clearly has had more experience than any other candidate around the executive office, she is hardly a seasoned veteran who has successfully produced change. In fact, her most prominent post was as Chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, which turned out to be an unmitigated failure. Personally, I don't find Hillary's resume that much more impressive than Obama's who worked as a community organizer (among other things) from 1983-1996, was a state legislator from 1998 to 2004 and has been a senator since 2004. On top of all this, one must consider that Bill Clinton himself was unable to pass all the "change" that he wanted (even with a Democratic Congress and Senate in his first two years). In sum, I don't find the claims that Hillary is a seasoned veteran with a track-record of bringing people together to be all that convincing.

This was not originally meant to be slam on Hillary, but I guess it has somewhat become that. Honestly, I just found her so irritating in last night's debate. While I'm at it, I would also like to go through Hillary's attacks on Obama's stances. Throughout the campaign, Hillary has made two major attacks and seems to always point these out when asked to locate differences between the two candidates. She did so last night. Honestly, I find her characterization of those differences insulting...insulting to my intelligence. The first one relates to social security. To see a full discussion of why social security is in no danger, see my diatribe about it here. One of the things I mention is that the easiest way to save it would be to raise the ceiling upon which the payroll tax applies to. I don't want to repeat myself, but suffice it to say, it is a very fair way to handle the problem, and only a crooked tycoon would find it unfair. It was on this issue that Hillary accused Obama of trying to raise taxes. Just so it's clear, that was a disingenuous and dishonest attack straight out of the tactical handbook of the "vast Right-Wing conspiracy." The second item relates to Health Care. Let me take a quote from another of my diatribes on healthcare: "Because his plan is not compulsory, strictly speaking, Obama's plan is not a true universal health insurance coverage plan. This is more a technicality more than anything else. Look for all the other candidates to exploit this in debates." How perceptive and prophetic of me. There is a minuscule, completely meaningless part of Obama's plan that strictly speaking does not require everyone to get health care. In reality, if it turns out that this is a big problem, it could easily be changed. All it does is give people some flexibility in their health care choices at the cost of preventing the plan from being called a "universal" plan. To harp on this intricacy is also disingenuous. I just expect more intellectual responsibility from my candidates.