What a pleasure it was to see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the one-on-one Democratic debate in California on CNN tonight.
Who would have predicted even a few years ago that the final candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008 would be an African American and a woman - two groups marginalized, discrimated against, and worse throughout America's history.
Seeing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton up there on the stage, knowing that one of them will be the Democratic nominee for President, would have been inspiring enough in itself.
But the ensuing debate was a pleasure to watch, a rational discussion between two highly intelligent, compassionate, and articulate people.
Hillary, as always, had some superb lines - my favorite being that it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it will take a Clinton to clean up after the second Bush.
Obama's wit shown through, too - my favorite of his jibes being that McCain's "straight talk express" somewhere lost some of its wheels.
The best moments of the debate, in other words - and there were many - came when Obama and Clinton attacked not each other, but the Republicans.
Not that this debate was a lovefest. I think Obama made some powerful arguments about being right, from the very beginning, about not going into Iraq.
In the end, I think it does come to Obama being more original and inspiring in his thinking and vision. But Hillary Clinton has brought a lot to this campaign, too.
Wolf Blitzer's last question was about the possibility of an Obama-Clinton and a Clinton-Obama ticket. Both candidates said it was too early (of course) to speak of such things, but neither seemed averse to the idea.
I could happily support either ticket, with Obama-Clinton my first choice.
5 comments:
I just wanted to add to for people who are not aware Ron Paul supports:
People who make money by tips should be allowed to keep them untaxed.
Getting rid of the IRS & possibly switching to a sales tax that brings illegal aliens & corporate | individual tax cheats (who exploit tax loopholes) into the tax system.
Getting rid of corporate lobbying system that buys & pays politicians.
Revaluing our devalued dollar, by going back to having the dollar be backed by something of value (Gold like before 1974)
Why? Because right now….we just print more money when we need it….making the dollar worth less & less. That means when you buy something with your paycheck.. it doesnt go very far….because companies don’t value your dollar very much in comparison to other countries money. Obama & Hillary don’t plan on changing anything about making your paycheck worth anymore than it is today….it will remain devalued even if the deficit is paid. Thats a hard one to swallow.
They (H & ) both fill you up with issues that don’t really improve the quality of your life.
Ron Paul believes in making a foreign policy that makes a very strong military to defend America, without telling other countries how they have to live .
(Which only makes them hate us).
Making the government much smaller which allows the taxes to go down even further.
Getting the government out of our private lives, by telling us what to do & issuing ’sneek peek’ warrants that allow the govt to go into your home without your permission | take a look & leave.
Democrats are the same as most Republicans….do not be misled.
Investigate Ron Pauls voting record. He stands now where he stood when he first took office as a congressman. All the others give typical election year opinion changing mamby pamby ness.
Telling you what you want to hear.
I can’t believe American citizens have become so ignorant not to notice what is happening during these debates.
There is no doubt that if “Ron Paul” is NOT a threat to monied interests in this country (in receiving their tax sponsored corporate welfare…..why would they decide to exclude him?
Obviously he is a threat to their free money & ability to then spend it with lobbyists to pass even more legistlation that benefits them directly.
If Ron Paul has such a low amount of support, why did the mainstream media have no problem pushing someone with no support
(Guiliani was supposedly a wrap for the Republican nomination, with no support the media pushed him like crazy !)
Democrats are exactly the same as most republicans these days. Bought & paid for.
Clinton has been caught so many times with her hand in the cookie jar ( Insider commodity trading, Walmart Union Busting)
Obama’s beautiful mansion bought & paid for by his biggest contributor mafia-tied real estate developer
Chicago “slum landlord” federally indicted Antoin “Tony” Rezko. The lot is just 1 away from Rezko’s own.
Anon -
Unfortunately, Ron Paul also allowed racist comments to be published under his name for decades ....
This doesn't mean many other of his positions aren't commendable - but it does make it impossible for me to support his candidacy.
Also - your claim that all Democrats are "bought and paid for" is nonsense - and the few general examples you give in no way support such a claim.
I could see a Clinton-Obama ticket somehow, but I don't think Hillary Clinton would accept anything other than #1 at this point in her career. I prefer Obama in this race, but let's face it, Hillary Clinton is presidential. She's presidential in a much different way than Obama, but she is without question a stateswoman of the highest caliber.
Clinton is competent, organized, bullish on her agenda, and would run a strict and tight ship at the White House. Obama is a transformative leader who inspires and pushes a vision of the future that creates hope. It's not business as usual with him.
In the end, I doubt that there would be a combination of the two on the Democratic ticket. If one of them swallows their pride and wants what's best for the country, what a team they could be.
By the way, speaking of racism, John McCain on the campaign trail in 2000 was confronted by an Asian-American reporter about his repeated use of the word "gook" to describe his Vietnamese captors. He was unapologetic saying, “I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live… I was referring to my prison guards and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend.”
He later apologized and promised to refrain from using that word in public. On one hand, while one might understand his bitter and unresolved feelings about the trauma he endured in the Hanoi Hilton, as a public official seeking higher office he is charged with representing all of America, including a lot of people that have been stigmatized by that sort of language. His apology notwithstanding, I have never been able to completely forgive him for his insensitivity.
Obama-Gore?
Clinton-Gore?
Hmmmm....
Post a Comment