Translate


Sunday, January 6, 2008

The New Hampshire Debates- Change, Change, Change


"It's time for a change"


Didn't I tell you it was all about Change? How many times did the Democratic candidates mention the word "change" in last night's debate in New Hampshire? On some occasions, they used the word several times in the same sentence. The moderators and pundits kept using the word. Charles Gibson even made it the second topic of the debate, after nuclear terrorism. Frank Luntz asked a Democratic voter focus group if they thought "change" was an important issue. (Almost unanimously, they said it was.)It is all about "Change" Don't just stand there! Change something!

One thing that is changing is the expectation that Hillary Clinton was going to waltz her way to the Democratic nomination. She came into New Hampshire with a lead in the polls that Obama is rapidly wiping out. Polls-shmolls-now that people are starting to VOTE, it is becoming apparent that she is not what the Democratic voters want. She seems to be trapped between convincing people that she is the most "experienced" on the one hand, and the one who will bring change on the other hand. Tough balancing act. Many in Luntz's focus group indicated that she once supported Clinton, but have switched to someone else-like Obama. Then there is the likability factor. After that, there is the credibility factor. Not good, Mrs Clinton.

In last night's debate, she seemed to cement her position as the 3rd most likeable candidate. Obama seemed poised and confident. Edwards showed angry passion (as he continued his theme of America as Calcutta). Hillary, in turn, was the same old tired Hillary, reiterating that she has been "an agent of change for 35 years". It is truly getting tiresome-even to Democratic voters. Now, the pundits are predicting that she will not win New Hampshire.

Richardson was really bad. He seemed to be struggling to find words to show voters why his experience should count (and he was the most experienced candidate on the stage). His answers to the questions about Iraq and the threat of nuclear terrorism were weak. He talked about diplomacy, convincing Musharraf to resign, and bringing the troops home from Iraq so we could spend the money on health care and other domestic needs.

The other candidates actually said some strong things about terrorism. Obama repeated his statement in answer to a question, that he would go into Pakistan if he had intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts-even without Pakistan's permission if that government refused to take action. I liked Clinton's suggestion about a US/ international venture to help Pakistan safeguard their nukes. Edwards said he would use "every tool" to stop terrorists. (Does that include NSA wiretaps, Guantanemo Bay, military force, aggressive interrogation techniques and military tribunals, Mr Edwards?)

On the Republican side where Romney was supposed to be the leading candidate (in New Hampshire), he took most of the attacks from McCain and Huckabee. More than one pundit commented that Romney is obviously not well-liked by the other candidates. The one that really turned me off was-once again- Ron Paul. He repeated his belief that we are hated by the Islamic world because we are occupying their lands, then added that Islam was no more infected by hatred and violence than any other religion (I am paraphrasing). Is that right?

I still have not decided which Republican I will vote for in the California Primary. Several months ago in this blog, I wrote McCain off. I was premature, and I admit that I am taking a strong second look at him. I like what he says about the war on Islamic terror, and I like what he says about limiting government spending. It is his weak position on illegal immigration that turns me off. Nevertheless, he is back in strong contention-and looking more energetic.

By the way, is it just me or is anyone else wondering how these candidates (who have elected positions) can take a 2 year sabatical from their jobs to run for president?

I have a suggestion as regards to Change. Let's bring back Kucinich and Gravel for the next debate. They can replace Hillary and Richardson. And let's bring back Duncan Hunter as well.

One thing that won't change is the Islamoterrorists trying to kill us.

Meanwhile, I'll stop here. I gotta go change my oil.

No comments: