The Great Debate
This was supposed to have been the knockdown dragout. It may have been. The part I was half-listening to on the TV mounted on a column behind me at work was a dickerfest about health care. A guy who had finished his work and was watching said, “It seems like all they ever talk about in these debates is health care. How come?”
“I dunno. I betcha most of the people who will actually be voting already have it, and most of the rest are getting it one way or another. What they need to do is figure out how to make it cost less, and that doesn’t sound like what they’re trying to do. But they must figure this blah blah blah over whose plan does what is resonating with the electorate or they wouldn’t be doing it, right?”
I know it’s important to be seen to have a plan, to be seen to be defending that plan, to attack the other’s plan, and for one’s own plan to be perceived as a serious, compassionate and practical bid to resolve a pressing issue, even if at the end of the day, for 99 percent of those people watching, health care might as well be quantum physics, those plans in actual bill form before Congress would be raw meat, and if any given president/Congress combo manages to pass anything, it will resemble any of these plans like Baby Frankenstein resembles a fully formed adult human.
And that’s why I was hoping they’d start going after each other on matters of substance, issues people will actually be voting on and on which they’ll be able to clearly distinguish differences between the candidates. Like Photogate, and whether in fact Obama wrapping the contents of the linen closet around himself constitutes a threat to national security, or whether, conversely, Hillary is a racist fearmonger. I’d like to hear a debate over why one candidate must be referred to as Hillary Rodham Clinton but the other must never be referred to as Barack Hussein Obama.* I understand there was some demuring on the first point, but all I heard was the blah blah blah about health care. There was apparently also some demuring and needling over Farrakhan’s Obama endorsement, and because the Ohio vote is coming up, dickering about who doesn’t like NAFTA more and when they stopped liking it. Now I’m going to hand over to Michelle, who did watch the whole thing, because she needed a cackle. And got one.
Vodkapundit’s essential drunkblogging.
Tigerhawk wishes he was drunk as Vodkapundit and can’t take the health-care blather anymore either, and hopes all the independents joined him in switching to one of his other 400 channels.
Riehl: “My God! It’s the same debate — going over the same small issue between their health care plans.”
Underwhelmed Gateway reckons Hill’s cooked.
Surber: Fraser vs Ali in Cleveland? More like Chuck Wepner.
Some of what Dean’s World is smoking, please. Dave Price feels better about his choices in this election than any other in memory. Comes down pro-Hussein in the middle name debate.
TPM: How dare Russert mention Farrakhan? Wheedling, parsed smear!
Here’s some news, via Captains Quarters. LA Times poll finds McCain beats them both, even when they are getting all the attention. Maybe because they are getting all the attention. Hey, he got some attention last week. Bad attention. Apparently it didn’t hurt. While McCain in head-to-head contests edges them out, on the key point on which most people will be voting, he thrashes them:
When compared to either Democrat, McCain is rated as the “strongest leader.” He easily outpaces both when voters are asked who has the “right experience to be president,” beating Obama by 31 points and Clinton by 12.
People who aren’t supposed to like him even like him on issues they aren’t supposed to like him on.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have made ending America’s involvement in the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. And even though a clear majority of those polled said the war was not worth waging, about half of registered voters said McCain — a Vietnam vet who has supported the Bush administration’s military strategy — was better able to deal with Iraq.
In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61% of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats.
The survey showed that McCain’s potential advantages extend even to domestic issues, where he is considered to be most vulnerable. Even though McCain has joked about his lack of expertise on economic issues, voters picked him over Obama, 42% to 34%, as being best able to handle the economy. However, Clinton led McCain on that issue, 43% to 34%.
“I just think he’s older, he’s more experienced, and he’s got the betterment of the country in mind,” said Robert Fear, 79, a registered Democrat from Newton, Ill., who said he planned to support McCain in November.
That Hill economy result is a little surprising, seeing how much trouble she’s had figuring out where she stands on it. She could be benefiting from some kind of mystical lingering Clinton economic glow, even though voters are becoming turned off by the co-presidency thing and she’s actively distancing herself from one of her husband’s major economic policies. But given that she otherwise lacks both Obama and McCain, that result raises a question about how big an issue the economy actually is.
The poll makes much of splits in both parties — old white women vs blacks for the Dems, and con-con discomfort/raging hatred of McCain. Those are still largely primary splits, however. In the latter case, the article suggests trouble for McCain in November, if in fact 1 in eight Republicans stays home or votes for someone else. Maybe. If. I don’t know about you, but I know some moderate to left-leaning Democrats who voted for McCain in 2000, and these results suggest, he still has the potential to cut deep into the other side.
* On the pressing middle name issue, I’d like to know whether McCain now intends to repudiate those who insist on repeating uttering “Rodham.”
Topics: pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:08 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2008
8 Responses to “The Great Debate”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Clinton and Obama can blather on all they like. I don’t bother listening anymore, because neither one of them has come up with an idea I remotely care about.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I will be forced to do something that I never thought i would be able to do next week in the Ohio primary — vote for the Hillbilly. I view it as my civic duty to keep this pot boiling.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:38 am
RebeccaH: You should do that also.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Unfortunately, government run health care is back on the table because Republicans refused to address the problems with health care insurance (note I don’t say health care itself) while they were in power. They did a little HIPAA and COBRA stuff with Clinton, but since then, nothing. It’s become a growing issue because of regular layoffs, job mobility, and short term contract work. The workforce has changed, but the way we handle health insurance has not. It’s ridiculous that I can’t buy an insurance policy from any company in the country who applies for a simple license to sell in my state, or that tax treatment is unfavorable for small business owners, or that I can’t join up with any group of people I wish to and negotiate a group coverage policy. Those are all things a conservative government could have addressed and chose not to, and now we’re facing a total takeover by the government. I don’t think it will happen, not yet, but we’re closer now than we have ever been in the past and the odds are certainly higher than I’m comfortable with.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Neither one has anything new to offer. It’s all the usual boilerplate, platitudes and bromides. Ideas? Parrots don’t have ideas; all I’ve heard from both of them are repetitions of the same old socialist crap.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I have lost all patience with conservatives who say they will sit home if their guy does not win the primary, or something or other. It ought to dawn on them that if they do sit home and McCain still manages to win a lot of Republicans might not give a rat’s ass the next time the right decides to throw a temper tantrum.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Fatty:
I am not sure what you are saying. A friend of mine can not get insurance because the company will not sell it to him. He actually sent them a quarter’s worth of premiums and they sent the money back to him. He is in his 50’s, has a history of hyper tension and the insurance people do not want him or his money. What is the government supposed to do about that? What is he supposed to do about it?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
[...] tarot cards, etc, now give it to Clinton and Obama. That’s funny. Last week McCain was beating them both. Apparently we’re going to have to have a general campaign after all. Once these two winners [...]