The Debate, Hillary Redux and why any Democrat is better than any Republican

by Tom Kando

Call me a one-track mind, but after the democratic presidential debate, I MUST devote another post to Hillary Clinton and the presidential campaign.

So on October 13, five democratic candidates for the US presidency held a debate, attempting to emulate the same level of entertainment as that with which eleven Republican candidates regaled us nearly a month earlier.

The candidates were (1) former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the front runner; (2) Bernie Sanders, Vermont Senator, an independent and a “Socialist,” the only other candidate with a significant following at this time; (3) former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley; (4) former Virginia senator Jim Webb; and former Rhode Island governor and senator Lincoln Chafee, who had the great courage to convert from Republican to Democrat in 2007.


Realistically, the only two candidates who matter are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, so I shall focus on their performances.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper was the moderator. His strategy was to be politely confrontational. Right off the bat, he asked Hillary Clinton whether or not she was an opportunistic waffler, as she had changed her position on several issues, including the Iraq war and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But Cooper was fair, in that he picked on all contestants in equal measure. For example, he asked Bernie Sanders whether he was a socialist, and therefore probably unelectable. He then proceeded to ask all five candidates point blank whether each of them was a “capitalist” or a “socialist.” I was embarrassed by the shallowness of such infantile and meaningless labeling and simplification. Fortunately the answers were more sophisticated than the question. They dealt with America’s shameful inequality and with social democracy as a potential solution.

On gun control, Clinton was firm and clear. Her opposition to the NRA was unequivocal. Sanders was more vulnerable. Representing a rural state, he has to cater to a more gun-toting electorate.

On the Iraq war, Clinton was more vulnerable, as she had voted for that war, unlike Sanders (and Chafee). Her critics said that this showed poor judgment on her part, disqualifying her as a potential US president.

In general, Clinton is more hawkish than Sanders, but she is not necessarily the most hawkish among the five contestants. For example, she favors a no-fly zone over Syria, which the US would have to enforce, at the risk of clashing with Russia. To be sure, all five candidates oppose sending US ground troops to Syria.

And this is part of the good news, which is that all the Democratic candidates are far more often in agreement than in disagreement: While none of them is an outright pacifist (not even Sanders), they are all reasonably isolationistic and leery of foreign military entanglements. This is in stark contrast to GOP  hawks such as Senator John McCain, who seemingly has never seen a conflict in which we should not get involved.

All the candidates also agree that man-made climate change is either THE most serious threat to humanity, or one of the most serious ones. 

Furthermore, America’s growing economic inequality is uppermost on all the candidates’ agenda. There was a fair degree of agreement about the banks and their nefarious role in the 2007 economic collapse: While O’Malley wanted to reinstate Glass-Steagall (so as to separate commercial banks from the “casino banks” called securities firms), Clinton preferred to rely on the Dodd-Frank reforms. But everyone agreed that Wall Street corruption badly needs to be reigned in.

When the subject of Edward Snowden came up, just about everyone agreed that he had performed a valuable service, but that he had gone about it the wrong way, and that he should be held accountable for breaking the law.

Everyone agreed that it is high time for America to join the ranks of civilized nations and provide paid parental leave.

On legalizing recreational marijuana, most of the candidates were cautious, yet all agreed that we should stop incarcerating people for this.

Finally, there seemed to be agreement - certainly among the candidates who matter the most - that Hillary’s “e-mail scandal” is a vastly overblown and contrived issue. Sanders got the audience ovation of the night when he said that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about Clinton’s e-mail problems. The loser, here, was Anderson Cooper, representing the sensationalist media: He tried to milk the topic as much as he could, but all the contestants wanted to move on to real issues.

Thus, the five democratic candidates are all good, reasonable people. Their differences were of degree, not of kind. My wife summarized this debate perfectly: The contrast with the Republican debate last month couldn’t have been clearer: This was the debate of the civilized, as opposed to the uncivilized last month. It was the debate of SUBSTANCE, as opposed to last month’s travesty.

Of course, some might argue that this debate was also more boring. In a way, the Republican debate was more fun, sometimes reminding me of Saturday Night Life. It was funny even though the participants didn’t mean to be a joke.
© Tom Kando 2015
leave comment here