So Who Won?

By Keith Boykin
Sunday, January 6 2008, 12:10PM
in politics

I watched both the Republican and Democratic debates and I didn't see a clear winner in either one.

On the Democratic side, I thought all the candidates were competent and strong. I loved the part at the end when they talked about what mistakes they had made during the campaign in previous debates. It was also interesting that Edwards and Obama seemed to team up on the left (literally and figuratively) on the change side and Clinton and Richardson, when he wasn't busy pounding on the table, seemed to team up on the right (literally and figuratively) on the experience side. When did experience become a leper, Richardson asked.

On the Republican side, Romney was the focus of much of the attention and criticism, but John McCain curiously didn't speak up much. All the Republicans, except for maybe Ron Paul, were far too conservative for me. It seems they only talk about fear-based issues like national security, 9/11, "Islamofascism," terrorism and illegal immigration.

They also look like they're scared of Barack Obama. All of them were asked to talk about Obama's Iowa victory and they all seemed impressed with him as they tried to distinguish themselves from him. But Romney told McCain that running on Washington experience would not be enough to stop Obama.

Ironically, Romney made the same argument for himself earlier in the day (or the day before). "We cannot afford Barack Obama as the next president. He's a nice fella and a very well-spoken fella, but he's never done it," Romney said in Derry, New Hampshire. That almost makes sense except Romney has never done it before either. For that matter, none of the candidates has "done it before." The best qualification for president is simply to be president, and nobody running for president has done that before.

The most disturbing comment of both debates was when Romney talked about health insurance. Apparently he believes the millions of Americans without health insurance are simply deadbeats who want to live off the government. "The reason health care isn't working like a market right now is because you have 47 million people who say 'I'm not going to play. I'm just going to get free health care paid for by everybody else.' That doesn't work," Romney said.

Comments (5)

MLee
January 6 2008, 5:18PM

In this article you wrote:

"The most disturbing comment of both debates was when Romney talked about health insurance. Apparently he believes the millions of Americans without health insurance are simply deadbeats who want to live off the government."

The reason 47 million people are without health insurance is because health insurance is too damn expensive. I, a single man, pay $812 a month for health insurance. My insurance company has paid out less than $2,000 for me over my entire adult life. (I am very healthy.) Yet, I cannot go without health insurance because one illness could wipe me out financially, then I would be on public welfare. Health insurance in this country is not a pretty picture.

M
January 7 2008, 2:35AM

I don't want to call people out of their names but ALL of the Republican candidates are repugnant to me in one way or another. This ... comment about the 47 million without healthcare is classic..., CLASSIC!

Albert
January 7 2008, 9:12AM

Love the new site, Keith, keep up the good work.

We all know the republican bag of tricks quite. Unfortunately, this bag of tricks has worked for the better part of the last 30 years and caused our country to move very far to the political right. In order to defeat these methods the democratic nominee will have to address these fears. The democratic nominee will have to discuss illegal immigration that debunks the myth the Mexicans are the cause of America's labor issues. The nominee will have to convince the American people that welfare queens won't be back in business under democratic administration.

Democrats will have to establish a platform that lays every fear to rest or we could be in for another fours years of fear, hate, destruction of the middle class.

James E. Lochner
January 7 2008, 2:48PM

I especially appreciated the way Obama brushed aside as typical Washington politics the question about Senator Thompson referring to Obama endorsements "by some of the most liberal groups in the nation" implying that he was "way left of center."

Obama's reply: "... that's what they're going to do to any Democrat. I mean, we've seen this movie before. We know the Republican playbook."

I like the way he just confronts it head on, calls it out, and moves on. Bravo!

FRE
January 7 2008, 7:05PM

Many of the candidates repeatedly point to Obama's lack of experience. Ronald Reagan had no federal experience when he was elected president, yet many Republicans believe that he was one of our best presidents. Any day they will begin calling him St. Ronald. But, when he was president, he relaxed banking regulations, which caused S & L failures, costing the taxpayers more than 100 billion dollars. His administration marked the beginning of the increasing gap between rich and poor. When he was governor of California, his actions resulted in putting mentally ill patients onto the streets. Although he took credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, probably that would have happened anyway.

No one can have sufficient knowledge and experience to be president. The important thing is to have a good sense of values and the ability to assemble a competent group of advisers.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)