There can be no doubt that the best moment of the debate
between the five Democratic candidates for president came early when
ex-Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley verbally slapped around Vermont Senator
Bernie Sanders on the issue of greater gun controls. O’Malley was right that
the gun issue in America does not come down to rural versus urban attitudes as
Sanders was stating.
This exchange between the handsome matinee idol and the old
curmudgeon produced the best zinger of the campaign so far:
SANDERS: Well, as somebody who has a D-minus voting record...
O'MALLEY: And I have an F from the NRA, Senator.
SANDERS: I don't think I am pandering. But you have not been in the
United States Congress.
O'MALLEY: Well, maybe that's a healthy thing.
But it was much ado about nothing, as all the candidates
agreed that we need to tighten gun controls. Perhaps O’Malley and former First
Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton want more controls than Sanders
and ex-Senator Jim Webb do, but they all want more gun controls and none
advocated outlawing private ownership of firearms. O’Malley and Clinton
approach the issue from the standpoint of public safety, while Sanders and Webb
approach it from the standpoint of ensuring the right to bear arms, but they
all have essentially the same plan of action.
It was that way about virtually all the issues. The
candidates differed only in minor quibbles that often turned out to be
definitional. And sometimes, they just agreed. In fact on every issue, O’Malley
said he agreed with either Sanders or Clinton, and sometimes both.
They all agree that the Clinton email snafu is a distraction
from the real issues of the campaign.
They all agree they support paid family and medical leave
and a woman’s right to control her body.
They all agree that human-induced climate change is a major
problem and all want to address it with regulation on fossil fuels and the development
of renewable energy sources.
They all agree that income inequality is one of the gravest
problems facing the nation, despite the snipping over whose plan was harsher on
banks and bankers. Again, while they agreed what to do—raise minimum wage, invest
in infrastructure, reduce cost of a college education, regulate the banks, they
came at the problem from slightly different angles, Clinton and O’Malley as
reformers of capitalism and Sanders as a democratic socialist who accepts
capitalism. Kind of like the difference
between FDR and Henry Wallace.
On foreign affairs, they pretended that Sanders was more
dovish, Clinton and Webb more hawkish and O’Malley splitting the difference,
but they all agreed that President Obama was doing the right thing in the
Middle East, and specifically Syria, and that it was wrong to invade Iraq but
right to go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The one real difference in policy was that
Clinton would impose a no-fly zone as part of a coalition and Sanders would
not.
On all these, and every other issue, all of these Democrats
are far more progressive than any of the Republicans, who would like to loosen
gun control laws, implement policies that will increase wealth and income
inequality, outlaw abortion, ignore climate change warnings, make the Clinton
emails a central campaign issue and (excepting Rand Paul) employ more troops
and planes in various Middle East hotspots.
Rarely have the differences between the two parties been so
stark.
Another difference between the two Republican and one
Democratic debates was that every Republican told a major lie having to do with
policy, whereas all the Democrats stuck to the truth when it came to statistics
and factual assertions not related to their own pasts.
Thus, just as in the Republican Party, deciding which
Democrat to support may come down to the style of the candidate. Here is what
this observer saw last night:
Webb appeared testy and sweaty-palmed, always at the edge of
losing it. He demanded more time several times during the debate, and came off
looking like the kid who’s mad he isn’t playing shortstop.
Chafee: He looked like he took one too many happy pills
before the debate and they made him disconnected in a goofy sort of way.
O’Malley: He was a little stiff, like Bill Clinton when he
first hit the national scene, and definitely not as smooth as his Republican
equivalent, Mario Rubio. But then again, he has the burden of remembering
facts, something that no Republican candidate seems to need this election
cycle. On the whole, however, I think O’Malley did well and would make a fine
vice presidential candidate for whichever Democrat wins the nomination or as a
future presidential candidate.
Sanders: I love Bernie, but people are eventually going to
get tired of being lectured by a cranky old man. Remember how Americans reacted
to Jimmy Carter’s constant chiding about frugality and lowered expectations.
The sunny-faced liar Ronald Reagan defeated him by selling a false vision based
of the future.
Clinton: As always, Hillary Clinton showed herself to be
controlled smart, quick on her feet and competent, if not as warm and friendly
as her husband, Reagan or Bush II. She answered the concerns about switching
positions on certain issues by focusing on her flexibility—she learned more
information and changed her mind. Some may accuse her of ideological impurity,
but her experience and skill set position her to bring into reality a much
larger part of the Democratic agenda than any other current candidate. If
Clinton has a lead in the polls and delegate count at the time, I may consider
voting for Sanders in my state’s primary, just to keep the pressure on all
Democrats to look left. But unless O’Malley suddenly catches fire with the
public, Hillary Clinton remains the best candidate for the Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment