Reactions to Last Night's Debate

I try to watch as many Presidential debates as I can. That's one way for me to learn what's going on in the world. But when I was looking at the channel guide and saw that the South Carolina Democratic debate would be three hours long, I thought, "Oh brother. Will I be able to take it?"

Fortunately, the debate ended up being only two hours, and the time went by pretty fast. I laughed out loud when Hillary and Obama were trading insults. I get a strong sense of inner satisfaction when the Clintons are not treated like royalty, but (oddly enough) I also admire Hillary's talent for finding dirt on people. She's probably a veteran at this. Remember the dirt that was suddenly found on Bill's opponents and victims? Also, not a whole lot seems to phase her (at least not in public). The crowd at the debate was obviously on Obama's side, and Hillary got booed on at least one occasion. But she kept her cool, showed no hint of shock or surprise, and ploughed through her point.

Overall, I thought that Obama answered Hillary's charges rather well, except when he talked about credit card debt. According to Hillary, Obama voted against an amendment that would have prohibited credit card companies from charging over 30 per cent interest. Obama stumbled through his response, saying that he wanted the limit to be lower than 30 per cent and that the bill didn't go through the banking committee, so he voted "no." In the end, Obama didn't come out on top in that exchange. As Hillary and Edwards pointed out, Obama's vote ended up leaving no limit on credit card interest at all. So much for his good intentions!

I found myself yelling at Edwards more than once. He just kept getting on my nerves! First, he was asking Obama why he voted "present" 100 times when he was in the Illinois legislature, rather than a simple "yes" or "no." My response to Edwards was, "Well, at least he showed up for his job! Wasn't your nickname 'Senator Gone'?" Second, Edwards was bragging about how he receives no money from lobbyists or special interests, in contrast to the other candidates. My thought was, "Bull! You get millions from trial lawyers. Get off your self-righteous high horse!"

Fortunately, Hillary made my point for me, prompting me to cheer, "Hit him hard, Hillary! I don't like you, but you're right on that one!" But I ended up in disappointment. Edwards was going through his usual spiel about how trial lawyers are good because they help the little guy ("By driving up health care costs?" I asked), and Hillary didn't respond.

That's when a latent thought of mine became explicit: I can't wait until one of these candidates goes against a Republican. I just can't stand watching a debate in which all three of the candidates agree on the same liberal presuppositions. I'll keep watching them because I can learn something, but seeing the Democratic debates is like a lot of academic experiences I have had: the liberal party line is just assumed. The Republican debates are not so boring. At least they have Ron Paul to stir the pot! But all three of the Democrats just assume that Reagan was a bad President, despite the end of the Cold War and the jobs his economic policies produced. And Hillary couldn't respond to Edwards by saying how trial lawyers are greedy and contribute to high health care costs, since only Republicans say those sorts of things. Plus, trial lawyers are her potential constituency (after Edwards gets out of the race).

I would love to see Hillary or Obama go against someone like Romney, who is good at attacking people and seems to have an answer for everything (or at least he looks like he does). Or Huckabee would make a good opponent. Imagine Hillary attacking mild-mannered, likable Mike Huckabee, who then responds with a smooth, articulate defense (hopefully). Who would look like "part of the problem in Washington" then?