Friday, April 27, 2007

Tivo-blogging the Democratic debate

Ann Althouse Tivo-blogs the Democratic candidates debate so you don't have to. Part I is here. Part II is here. Here are some key excerpts I found interesting:

Clinton on the Iraq war vote:

We go back to Clinton, because she was attacked (though Edwards tried to act like it wasn't an attack). She says she takes "responsibility" for her vote and that she would not have voted as she did if she knew what she knows now. The real question, she says -- correctly! -- is "what do we do now?" But then she runs Bush down for "stubbornly" refusing to accede to the "will of the American people," which makes me wish I could ask her whether she thinks the role of the President is to adopt the military strategy that the polls show the people preferring (which would be completely incompetent).

Richardson on troop funding:

Richardson is asked if he would fund the troops if he were in Congress. He says "no." The war is a "disaster." He would "withdraw all of our troops" by the end of the year. But he'd apply "intensive diplomacy" that would have the three religious factions working out their problems. He'd have a "security conference" that would include Iran and Syria. And he'd have other countries take over the reconstruction and security. Okaaaay. He's for magic. Great.

Clinton, when asked about Giuliani's statement that "America will be safer with a Republican president", gives an answer that blames the current President for not doing enough. Althouse responds with:

There is absolutely nothing there about why she would do a better job as the next President, and we were just reminded of Giuliani. Who do you want to trust, Clinton or Giuliani? That's the question. She gives not one shred of a reason here to go with her. Is there some way she would secure our borders and ports better than he would? Picture her standing at a debate next to Giuliani a year and a half from now. That's what you ought to do if you're trying to pick the best Democratic candidate. Is she the one you Democrats want standing there?

Althouse points out what I would consider the most important part of the debate:

Let's read something important. Obama is asked "how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas" if there were another attack on two American cities and we knew "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that al Qaida did it...

Go to Althouse to read the full responses, too much to excerpt over here, but I liked Ann's comments on their replies:


The first thing he thinks of is Katrina. Bush failed there, don't you know. Think fast, Senator. It's another 9/11! What is the military response? Show us you can think like a Commander in Chief...


So, be strong. But mainly just try very hard to figure out how they did it and how we can defend against the next attack. His idea seems to be about winning the hearts of the next generation. How do you fight the terrorists? Why not make them love us so they won't want to be terrorists anymore? Surely, if they see the Democrats have brought their new tools into the White House, they'll feel the love.


Attack! Destroy! Thank God, one of them is willing to say it. Hillary wins.


That beats Hillary. Richardson is my favorite of the Democrats. And Obama and Edwards are unacceptable.

All emphasis mine.

Read the whole thing over at Althouse.

No comments: