Last night’s CBS News debate was set to a rock concert-like atmosphere, and perhaps because of that was a near disaster from start to finish; the two “moderators”—Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King—allowed things to get out-of-control like a pie-fight early and often. A large part of the reason was that for the first half of the debate the “other” candidates were busy falling over themselves taking shots at Bernie Sanders, with the “kids” waving their hands like school children to get their two-bit in. Mike Bloomberg called Sanders a tool of the Russians, Joe Biden slammed him on gun control (Sanders pointed out that he had a “D-“ rating from the NRA) while trying to alienate black voters from him by refusing to cite the obvious—that Barack Obama was more “centrist” than “progressive.” Elizabeth Warren continued to make the tired claim that even though she and Sanders agree on a “lot of things,” she has the better "plan” to implement them. The attacks from Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were the usual vanilla ice cream with attempts to show their “progressive” side by putting a little chocolate syrup on top to entice black voters. Tom Steyer—probably knowing that he needed to get his “program” across in his first debate appearance—largely refrained from attacks on Sanders, and although the “experts” gave his performance a thumbs-down, outside a few stumbles here and there I wasn’t unimpressed by his performance.
Sanders—who unlike the other
candidates did not stray from message to pander to black voters in an obvious
and self-servingly opportunistic way—tried to strike a balance between staying
on message and responding to the attacks, which was obviously difficult given
the limited time. Given the circumstances, I didn’t think that Sanders was hurt
too much, and the “booing” that has been referred to was due not to Sanders “misjudging”
the audience as one commentator claimed, but were by Bloomberg supporters when
Sanders attacked “billionaires,” and the second time when he mentioned Biden’s
support of free trade agreements (which I don’t necessarily agree with Sanders
on); I think any commentators who thought the booing was “personal” are the ones
who “misread” where it derived from. Sanders also managed a slight “backatcha”
on the support of Israel question, forcing other candidates to fumble on their
position on Palestinian rights.
While Biden was clearly pandering
to black voters throughout the debate (and CBS deploying James Clyburn—who endorsed
Biden—to introduce the debate was clearly with partisan intent), the only
candidate who “stood out” was Warren, but that was only because she was allowed
by the moderators to talk without being interrupted like the other candidates.
Otherwise, she didn’t really say anything that wasn’t as much a “talking point”
than what everyone else was saying—she just spoke more “forcefully,” or whatever.
Most (but by no means all) post-debate commentary was very impressed by her “performance,”
reiterating her media reputation as a “policy wonk.” Yet others have pointed
out that Warren has not been putting forth policy ideas she can claim as her
own; she simply has been borrowing the policy positions of many, many other
people that have been set forth many, many times before over the years. If you
are old enough to remember the political and social humor on The Smothers Brothers’ Comedy Hour and Laugh-In, you know that the things that
Warren was talking about are as old as the hills. Hell, FDR was talking about many
of these policy issues in his famous Madison Square Garden speech in 1936.
I think before people start thinking that
Warren’s version of “socialism” is “superior” to Sanders’ version just because
the media thinks that it “sounds” better coming from a woman should remember that
Paul Ryan had a reputation as a “policy wonk” too, and that didn’t exactly work
out for him or the country—in fact his failure is a major reason why Donald
Trump is running wild with “executive authority." Ryan could have worked
with moderate Democrats and jettisoned the far-right “Freedom Caucus,” but he
refused to do that. There is no reason to believe that Warren can work any
better than Sanders with Republicans on “progressive” policy—such policies can
only be done through executive authority—and if the rest of the field tries to be "bipartisan," we will only get the regurgitation of the “centrist” policies of Bill
Clinton, which have provided the country with a whole raft of disastrous results, whether people like former Clinton aid and Sanders bedwetter James Carville want to admit it or not.
But you have to hand it to Warren:
she speaks very clear and understandable English when she accuses people of being “sexist,”
like Bloomberg supporting Republicans senatorial candidates over Democratic
female candidates like herself. But like Hillary Clinton, Warren does have a
credibility problem. If by some chance
of fate she is nominated, she will likely be pummeled on the “trust” issue,
given the constant lies and misinformation she has told about herself. It is
remarkable to me that the other candidates have not spoken out about Warren’s
problem with the truth and how that couldn’t be differentiated with that of
Trump, or why debate moderators haven’t questioned her whether anything she
says can be believed. Warren, like Clinton, lives in her own “alternate fact universe,”
and if people question this reality, she devolves into those “sexism” attacks
and the election becomes less about “the people” than her own megalomania.
During the debate Warren again
lied about her losing her special education job because of pregnancy. No, her “resignation”
was “regretfully accepted” according to board meeting notes—in fact it may be
the other way around: she used her pregnancy as an “excuse” to get out of the
position. And she didn’t just “go home,” she was preparing herself to go to law
school as an “underrepresented minority.” Warren again and again “forcefully” talked
about ideas, but she wasn’t bothered by the moderators about “petty” details
like how and how much like Sanders was. Warren did say she said that we should
only send in the military if it will do any good, and there is an “exit”
strategy”; but who isn’t for that? Is someone as egotistical and willing to act
impulsively and disingenuously when she feels personally slighted as Warren (much
like not just Clinton but like Trump) to be trusted to make those decisions?
The second half of the debate ran
out of steam when people ran out of things to attack Sanders on, and mostly
focused on Trump and the other candidates. This, the last debate before Super
Tuesday, did not have the “clarifying” result as to who would be Sanders
principle challenger. I expect that Biden will win the South Carolina primary
despite his not exactly “progressive” record, because of his ties to Barack
Obama in as state in which black voters are the large majority of the Democratic
vote (and most refuse to be aware of Sanders’ civil rights activities and his
endorsement of Jesse Jackson’s presidential bids in the 1980s), but if Sanders
finishes a strong second, that will likely mean that this debate was indeed too
chaotic and embarrassing to change many minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment