Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

The headline of the second part of the Second Democratic Presidential Debate, just concluded on CNN, is that Joe Biden did a lot better than he did in the First Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC last month. He was still a little inarticulate at times, and a little too prone to let the moderators interrupt him, but he was very impressive.  And so was just about everyone else on stage in Detroit tonight.

Some highlights -

• De Blasio is completely right that current, private health care premiums, deductibles, out of pocket expenses, not to mention costs of prescribed medications, are far more expensive than what we would pay in taxes for universal, government-provided heath care.  On the cost of pharmaceuticals, good for Biden for highlighting that these obscenely high costs need to be brought under control
• Castro and Gillibrand were right to call on De Blasio to immediately fire Eric Garner's killer, officer Daniel Pantaleo (Harris joined in on this call, too.)
• Inslee was right to call for end of Senate filibuster.
• Biden handled criticism of some of his past decisions pretty well.  He explained what he was trying to accomplish at the time, on issues ranging from busing to the Hyde Amendment, and he got support from Gabbard and Bennet.
• In general, just everyone on stage was sharp and combative when needed.  I'd say the weakest, in terms of ideas and constructive engagement, was Andrew Yang.

One point about Harris: she again wrongly contrasted science vs. science fiction in Democratic vs. Republican positions on climate.  Not that the Republican positions aren't fantasy and counter-factual, it's that science fiction is not that, and not the opposite of science.  She did the same thing in the first debate last month.  Here was my response.

The September debate is next up, and there will no doubt be fewer candidates up on stage for that.  I'll be back with an assessment of what should be another exciting, even inspiring, night.

See also Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the second part of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential debate was better than the first part - on yesterday - in that more of the ten on stage had standout moments.   My assessment follows, in descending order of what I thought were the best performances:

Harris was clearly outstanding and the best tonight.  She was powerful and eloquent on health care and immigration.  She was strong on the need to curb racism, including an attack on Biden for working with Southern racist Senators.  I liked her intention to take executive action on banning assault weapons (though Swalwell was even stronger on this issue), and she had the best closing statement.

Gillibrand did a lot of good for herself on the need to curb gun violence, and on the danger of compromising on women's rights.  I think she'll rise in the polls as a result of tonight's performance.

Among all the crucially important issues that beset us, I put reducing gun violence, aka gun control, at the top of the list.   I therefore agree completely with Swalwell putting gun control at the top of his list.  His plan to buy back assault weapons makes good sense, and he captured the stakes in this issue well with his observation that we need to "love our children more than our guns".

Bennet was correct to speak about Nazi concentration camps in his denunciation of the camps for immigrants at our Southern border, and he was right to stress the need to win back the Senate in the 2020 election (as Booker did last night).

Sanders had a strong closing statement, and he was passionate as always on the need to equalize wealth in America.

Buttigieg was powerful and articulate on the need to end police racism, but Swalwell did him one better by challenging him to fire the Police Chief of South Bend.

Biden took a long time to come alive - too long - and responded pretty well to Harris's attacks (but he should have kept talking).   He was excellent on the evil of putting children in cages, strong on the need to get our troops out of Afghanistan, and right to hold gun manufacturers responsible (but why let the NRA off the hook?).  His closing statement was ok - which is about the best you could say about his overall performance.

The other three either outright crazy (Williamson), too focused on a single issue (Yang), or nothing special (Hickenlooper).  I don't expect any of them to be on stage for the next debate.

But I'll be back here with another review.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers



Joe Biden does become President in this 2014 novel

Farewell Governor Paterson

I have mixed feelings about David Paterson's announcement today that he won't be seeking election to his own term as Governor of New York, having become governor when Eliot Spitzer resigned and Paterson as Lt. Governor assumed the office.

I still have not forgiven Paterson for not appointing Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton's seat when she was appointed U.S. Secretary of State.  I've come to admire Kirsten Gillibrand's position on many issues - including support of the public health care option, by reconciliation - but I still think Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would have been a game-changing appointment that could have really helped our nation progress.    Paterson had the chance to appoint her, and he blew it.

On the other hand, his treatment by the mainstream media, in particular their running with the Internet rumors that he was going to resign because he himself had been caught in some sort of sexual scandal, and the NY Times was about to publish a story about it, was disgraceful.   As I told Chuck Scarborough in an interview on the NY Nightly News - see video below - the news media should be reporting stories, not potential reports of stories.

It turns out the New York Times story was not about Paterson, but his aide David Johnson, who's accused of domestic abuse.   And Paterson's decision not to run is due to his possible involvement in trying to get Johnson's alleged victim not to proceed with the charges.   Paterson has denied this, it's not by any means in the same league as being involved in some sort of sexual scandal himself, but apparently the focus he'll need in defending against those claims, and being Governor, leaves no room for his running for office.

It's a sad day for Paterson and a tough day for New York.  He's done some very good things as governor, such as signing into law a bill that extends health coverage to children under their parents' policies until the children are 29.

The one good thing that we can get out of Paterson's announcement not to run for election is that at least he's not in the U. S. Senate, where every vote counts more than ever in these volatile times.

The New New York Senator

I don't know, I have mixed feelings about just about everything regarding David Paterson's appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's US Senate seat in New York until the required election in 2010.

1. Regarding Caroline Kennedy: I'm disappointed that she will not be going to the Senate. As I've argued previously, her going to the Senate would have been an historically significant and satisfying act - her stepping up and taking the seat once held by her slain uncle, RFK, in a branch of government in which her slain father, JFK, served, before becoming President in 1960. Caroline heard the call to public service made by Obama throughout his campaign, and stepped up.

But why did she withdraw at the last minute? If for something like personal or family health reasons, then we can chalk this up to more bad luck for the Kennedy family and our nation. If she withdrew for personal, non-health reasons that she knew about before stepping forward, then that would count against her. If in fact she withdrew because she knew, as Gov. Paterson now says, that he was going to choose Representative Gillibrand, than I wish she had not done that - but the main villain in this piece would then be Paterson.

2. I don't like the way Paterson conducted himself in all of this in any case. He should have made a public decision much sooner. Now he says he knew on Inauguration Day that he was going to choose Gillibrand ... if true, for what reason? Why did her preferable to Caroline Kennedy - or, for that matter, Andrew Cuomo?

3. And as for Kirsten Gillibrand: she has a 100% approval rating by both the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association. And that says it all to me. Because, even though both ACLU and NRA share a powerful support of the Second Amendment, with which I do not disagree, the NRA goes much further. As did Gillibrand, in introducing a bill (which didn't pass) which would have made it more difficult for police to track firearms. On the other hand, Gillibrand supports a woman's right to decide when to become a mother, and she supports gay marriage, too.

So, all in all, though I'm not at all happy with the way this whole selection process was conducted, and the way it turned out, I'm willing to support Gillibrand for the present, and see how she performs in office.

=============

P.S.: One other, minor point: What was Al D'Amato, former Republican Senator from New York, doing at the Gillibrand (Democratic) appointment ceremony? Well, maybe I shouldn't ask - any time D'Amato appears anywhere, it does provide a little publicity for my Phil D'Amato character.