I didn't actually watch the debate last night. We watched an episode of the French tv series, Origines, which I recommend. It has English subtitles.
So this morning I caught up on what the pundits said about the debate.
As expected, they all went after Biden. And one another. De Blasio in particular targeted Biden, who joked about it a little, saying, "I love your affection for me. You spend a lot of time with me."
Kamala Harris, who went all pit bull on Biden last month, got a little of her own medicine back this time, from an unexpected corner, Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard attacked Harris' record as a prosecutor. And Gabbard got some criticism of her own for her ties to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
It seems to be a predictable pattern that anyone who has a past in politics is going to have to defend their record. The longer the record, the more they are going to have to defend. And some of the rules have changed.
This article seems to be a pretty good summary.
And this article makes the case that the debates "...wasted too much time talking about stuff that only Congress can do:
"The president of the United States has a lot of power. "
"She can bomb and invade foreign countries, negotiate and implement new international agreements, impose sanctions and tariffs, pardon nonviolent drug offenders, change regulations of Wall Street and greenhouse gas emitters, break up corporate monopolies, set monetary policy through Federal Reserve appointments, and reshape the federal judiciary — all with limited or no involvement from Congress."
"That said, the president isn’t omnipotent. She cannot pass laws, or even really do more than lobby Congress to prioritize laws she cares about. She cannot enact new social programs or raise taxes on her own. She cannot repeal past laws or provide new funding for underfunded programs.
So it was deeply frustrating, if ultimately unsurprising, that the second round of Democratic presidential debates focused overwhelmingly on the second set of actions, not the first"
It appears that De Blasio, Gillibrand, Bennet, and Inslee are not on track to qualify for the third round of debates in September. It is to be hoped that the field will narrow a bit and there will be more focus on the issues.
I thought Gabbard was terrific as a debater. Don't know whether she'll meet the threshold to keep going into the next round, but she'd make a nice VP ticket counterpart for a Joe Biden. She'd be a junkyard dog going after Team Trump.
ReplyDelete"It appears that De Blasio, Gillibrand, Bennet, and Inslee are not on track to qualify for the third round of debates in September. "
ReplyDeleteIf you can't make that cut, it seems that being given your very own federal department to administrate is not a bad consolation prize. Or a country to be ambassador to. I'd put Bennet and Inslee in any of those positions. Inslee, of course, would be EPA. Not sure about Bennet - Education? Gillibrand displayed some wit, if not a lot of presidential chops - she could probably make a lot of money appearing on one of the NBC cable channels. Not sure about De Blasio. Maybe NYC is the right place for him.
Didn't watch, but good news about three of them. I like Inslee, but the herd needs thinning.
DeleteI'd like to see the end of Williamson, Yang, and Steyer (though Steyer didn't qualify for the June/July clusterfrak). This is just a vanity project for them.
Like them or not, we'll be left with Biden, Bernie, Warren, and Harris as front runners. In my view, three of these people are too old to serve for eight years.
Booker, Buttigieg, Gabbard, and O'Rourke (though Beto's appeal entirely escapes me) may hang on.
I want to like Ryan, but he's just not a strong candidate.
It's all moot; at this point I don't see any of these people striking enough sparks to start the conflagration needed to send Trump back to the Outer Darkness.
Unless there's a recession, and who wants to pray for that?
"...three of these people are too old to serve for eight years." If one of them could serve for four, and chose a strong VP, that person could have a leg up for nomination in 2024.
DeleteJim P's idea of Biden and Gabbard, or Jim McC's idea of Warren and Buttigieg. Or Biden and Buttigieg, or Warren and Gabbard.
DeleteSo have the elderly POTUS candidate agree to be a one-termer? That's a great narrative for the GOP: Democrats are so hard-up for viable candidates they've got to rob the retirement home and make the poor old coot promise to retire after four years so he doesn't stroke out or get foolish in office.
DeleteTerrible idea.
Dems could use someone who will throw Trump's outlandish reliance on cosmetics and lack of vitality, and Pence's whiter shade of pale into high relief. A Booker/Gabbard ticket would be terrific optics. They wouldn't be any worse than what we have now.
I agree it would be nice if the Dems could run a viable candidate who wasn't Medicare and SS eligible. But keep in mind that the Rs are running someone who, even if he isn't stroked out (and sometimes I wonder about that!) gets more foolish every day.
DeleteKatherine,
DeleteYou can't call it a second childhood for Trump because he never finished his first.
I watched the debate for a couple of hours and then got tired of it.
ReplyDeleteBiden seemed pretty chipper, I'll give him that. Stringing together a coherent sentence seemed to get progressively more challenging for him as the evening wore on. Not sure what that suggests.
It was probably past his bedtime. It lasted past mine.
DeleteWarren for POTUS and Buttigieg for VPOTUS.
ReplyDeleteIt would be great to have a Second Gentleman for a change!
That wouldn't be the worst outcome. I think Warren could hold her own against Trump in a debate. I don't care too much for Harris, but I'd vote for against Trump. Heck, I think I'd even vote for Bernie against Trump.
DeleteThe above should read "...I'd vote for her against Trump."
DeleteNone of the Dems have blown me away. But, I don't care. I will vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who it is.
ReplyDeleteI think Trump is slowly but surely destroying this country, destroying what it stands for, encouraging hate and bigotry, destroying the rule of law as far as he and his henchmen and buddies are concerned, destroying the entire concept of at least some semblance of Truth in what the President of the United States says, destroying the independence of the DOJ, neutering the Intelligence Community by appointing people who will protect him instead of our country's security, abusing his role as Commander by using the military for his own political purposes, destroying the balance of powers (because the GOP is standing aside, mute with fear that they will lose their seats if they actually stand up for the country instead of Trump and his "base"), twisting and distorting the Constitution, subverting the confirmation process by running the government with "acting" directors who don't have to be approved by the Senate, filling the judiciary with many unqualified folk who are chosen for loyalty to Trump's agenda and who will be there to support the Trump party (formerly known as the GOP) agenda for years to come. Etc.
I won't be paying much attention to the debates until it gets close to primary time. I couldn't last more than 30 minutes last night. Nobody can really talk, just interruptions.
I will have to re-register from Independent to Dem to be able to vote in the primary. Ours is so late (in May) it might not matter anyway but I will need to be ready. But once someone is the Dem candidate, I will work for him/her, give money, and volunteer to get out the vote. Maybe in Pennsylvania - close to home, and possibly can be turned blue again this time around. I truly think our country's entire future is at risk if he gets a second term.
And I speak as someone who never voted for a Democrat in my life - until 2016. He terrified me then, and he terrifies me even more now.I had expected a bit of principle from the Republicans in Congress. But it appears there is nobody around willing to stop his worst impulses.
Elizabeth, Pete, Tulsi, Kamala, Cory, Biden, Bernie. ANY of the 20 are better than Trump. If it's Williamson, I will vote for her. She at least believes in loving one another instead of promoting bigotry and hate.