Impressions of the Las Vegas Democratic Presidential Debate
Impressions of the Las Vegas Democratic Presidential Debate
I consider myself a centrist independent voter. These are my impressions of last night’s (November 15, 2007) Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate in Las Vegas.
Let’s go with my major thought first and then fill in with some lesser thoughts.
In the sales profession, one of the principles taught is this. If you know you’re going to get an objection to what you’re selling, then bring that objection up yourself and address it with the person you’re selling to. This approach enables you to take the objection away so the objection is no longer an impediment to making the sale.
Here’s how that applies to this election. By the same token, never bring up something that will create an objection where none existed before.
The Republican Party is guilty of a great many bad behaviors since 2001. A great majority of the Party’s core does not see those behaviors as bad and would continue them. I have voted for Republicans in the past. I may well vote for them in the future. My difficulty in bringing myself to vote for Republicans now has two major thoughts.
One, I refuse to reward bad behavior. If you had a child who was failing in school, using drugs and being arrested, would you buy that child a new car? The answer is no, isn’t it?
Two, the Republican Party’s candidates seem to show little inclination to change those behaviors in the coming 4 years and beyond. Losing elections will be the only thing that will cause them to modify their behaviors.
This election, therefore, should be about the behavior and performance of the Republican Party. What results have Republicans given us over the last 8 years and what results would they give us in the coming 4 years?
Now comes the “So what?” question. Why wouldn’t the focus of this election be about Republican performance for the last 8 years? Answer: Democrats take the focus off the last 8 years by nominating Hillary Clinton, thereby creating an objection where none existed before.
If Clinton is nominated, then the focus of the 2008 election will shift to a finger pointing, blame assigning debate about the Bush 8 years vs. the Clinton 8 years. The likely result of that will be a campaign whose nastiness will reach new heights and culminate in a 51 to 49% split. That result will leave the next President without a consensus and assure continued gridlock instead of progress. Do you want a political campaign focused on a rehash of Whitewater and Monica?
So, I have a message for Democrats. Don’t nominate Hillary Clinton. You will be shooting yourself in the foot and admiring your marksmanship.
I also have a message for Independents. I recommend you strongly consider saving Democrats from themselves. Do what you have to do to vote for Democratic candidates in your primary or caucus. Vote for someone other than Hillary. Do what you can to ensure you will have a choice in November 2008 that doesn’t force you to choose between the lesser of two evils. Give yourself a fighting chance for an election that focuses on the future. We will continue to provide input for making that choice with our analysis of the candidates.
Now let’s turn to some other thoughts and impressions.
Before the debate, the CNN pundits spoke of yearning for a substantive debate. How can you expect to have a substantive debate when the focus is so wide ranging and you have so many candidates participating? Come on, CNN. Make some choices. You can’t restrict candidates, so restrict the topics. Surely you can find a better format, especially for the first half. The questions from audience members were substantive.
Senator Obama said he was opposed to the use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. He got substantial applause for saying so. My question is this. If you do away with contractors, who are you going to replace them with and how will you recruit them? We’ll look into this when we analyze Obama.
Having done the analysis on Congressman Kucinich, I was disappointed to see him with so little time to promote himself in comparison to the other candidates. That applies to the others like Biden and Richardson, as well.
Senator Dodd’s demonstration of his ability to speak Spanish was amazing. Isn’t it interesting to think of a President Dodd negotiating with the President of Mexico or Hugo Chavez in their own language? What a change would it be for them to negotiate with a President who didn’t have to wait for the translation to continue the discussion? Particularly since the Latinos often are capable of speaking English?
We’ll have our analysis of Senator Gravel in the next day or two.
Comments