GREAT CHOICES? OR ARE WE STUCK IN REVERSE AS CAMPAIGN 08 ROLLS ON
Before I dissect the Democrat’s debate, I have a question. When was the last time, in your lifetime, that you ever faced a Presidential election and said, “This is such a great field. The candidates are so good that its so difficult to choose between them. What a choice. I’m totally conflicted. What a tough decision this is?”
Can you remember when the choice was so vivid, so dynamic that you stayed up late at night on election eve to make your pick?
My first vote was in 1964 (age 21 at that time), and I honestly cannot remember a White House battle that featured two spectacular candidates. It is, my friends, the system that creates the big-name big money juggernaut. I’m not saying that our current candidates are unqualified. I am saying that we need to make our system more attractive to attract fresh blood and new thinking.
On to the debate.
The media travels in a herd mentality. The herd is saying that Hillary Clinton stumbled a bit. I say the herd is sticking its head or heads in the sand. This is my perspective.
The Democratic Debate at Drexel University was a very telling affair. Obama, and especially Edwards, looked almost desperate as they tried to tar and feather Hillary Clinton with words. There were mixed results. Clinton held her own, and that was enough to keep her campaign steady. The Senator, from my perspective, looked quite in command, especially on the issue of Iran, where she showed the nation a firm but reasonable stance – diplomacy for sure, but a determination to expose the dark side of the terrorist country.
If you scored this one on a points basis, there is no question that Delaware’s Joe Biden was the winner. But he has been, in terms of credibility and clarity, for most of these debates. From a standpoint of long range strategy, Hillary Clinton did not fumble, and therefore, is presumed, by the media traveling with their own yardsticks, of having won. From this perspective, she looks in command. Barak Obama was brilliant in his answers and composure. John Edwards continue to look slick and political. That has an upside and downside. And Bill Richardson was his usual intelligent and interesting.
So its Biden on points, Clinton style and political safety by keeping her lead. Barak Obama is made for TV, but so far it may not be enough.
There is one interesting aspect of this debate. Tim Russert, one of TV’s greatest interviewers, seemed especially harsh on Senator Clinton. Did he feel that it was his duty to bring her down to size? He offered no such questions to the other candidates.
Anchor Brian Williams held the program steady and allowed his sense of humor to show.
It was a great coup for Drexel University, and a good night for Philadelphia.
Comments(3)
So, Larry, do you think the National Archives Question by Russert had anything to do with Sandy Berger stealing secret Clinton documents from the National Archives a few years ago, and now, he is hired as an advisor by the Clintons? Is it possible that Sandy felt betrayed by the Clintons after being a loyal soldier all these years and stole the documents in order to ensure his future in the Clinton Whitehouse? Or, do you think he stole the Clinton documents at the behest of Hillary & Bill in order to forestall a derailment of her campaign for president?
Joe: You have an obsession with Berger. Who knows? You might be on to something.
Larry: It’s not an obsession with Sandy berger, in particular. It’s that I see a connection between stories. Sandy Berger steals secret Clinton era documents, however, no one seems to be able to pin down which documents and, more importantly, why Sandy stole the “unknown” documents. Short of just a dismissal as “bizarre” behavior on a former Nationl Security Advisor’s part, what can one make of the incident? Sandy cops a plea, gets a light sentence (small fine) through a plea bargain with the Republican US Attorney General. Wait. What’s up with that? One would think that the Republicans would make a big deal of going after a Clinton foot-soldier, just as the Dems were going after Scooter Libby and Karl Rove and yet, they don’t. As a matter of fact, the Judge, at Sandy’s sentencing felt the plea bargain was much too lenient on the AG’s part and upped Sandy’s fine. So, all is well, for awhile…and all is forgotten for a few years regarding Sandy until Hillary hires Sandy as an “unpaid” advisor. Huh? What’s up with that? Hillary has more campaign money than all the other candidates and can’t afford to pay Sandy a salary? Well, that only makes sense when one connects the fact that Sandy would have to get a security clearance if he were on Hillary’s payroll. Of course, Sandy can’t get a clearance for another year or 2 because of his guilty plea to the old document theft case. So, now, Larry, things are making sense. And then, out of the blue, Tim Russert blind-sides Hillary with a question about releasing documents from the National Archives. Hold on…wasn’t that where Sandy was when he stole the “unknown” documents? Now, as of today, Hillary and Bill are refusing to allow their secret communications, stored at the Clinton Library in Arkansas, to be made public. What is up with that? Of course, the Bill Clinton pardon of Marc Rich (of Food for Oil fame), who contributed at least $1 Million to the Clinton Library gets looked at because there may be some investment issues with Hillary, who is noted for being able to pick out a great pork belly when she sees one. So, Larry, yes, I am connecting the dots. Yes, Larry, I see a story here. Now, Larry, let’s me and you, Investigative Reporters both, take this door that has been opened to wherever it takes us.