Home

By Robert A. Vella

CNN moderated part-1 of the second Democratic Party presidential debate last night, and it was much more effective than the embarrassing first debate debacle moderated by NBC/MSNBC last month.  Part-2 will be held tonight.  Although I wish the candidates were given more time for their responses, voters were much better informed about the positions and styles of the 10 presidential hopefuls on stage.  The pace was good, the moderators limited their involvement, and there were no disruptive melees.

The cast of candidates included two true progressives (Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren), three moderates (Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar, former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke, and South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg), three centrists (Ohio congressman Tim Ryan, former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper, and former Maryland congressman John Delaney), one populist red-state Democrat (Montana governor Steve Bullock), and one liberal (author Marianne Williamson).

Topics included healthcare, economics and trade specifically regarding the plight of American workers, education and student loan debt, immigration, foreign relations and the prospect of nuclear war, climate change, and race relations focused on the rise of white supremacy and possible slavery reparations.  President Trump’s name frequently came up, as did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s to a lesser degree, but former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s did not.  I did not hear the word “impeachment” at all, and the centrists’ rhetorical attacks against “socialism” – which plagued the first debate – barely resurfaced this time.

By far, the greatest disagreement between the candidates was over the issue of universal government-run healthcare.  In particular, Sanders and Delaney got into a vigorous debate.  Bernie asserted that the runaway costs of healthcare in the U.S. was due primarily to profiteering by private insurers, and Delaney countered that Sanders’ Medicare for all plan would bankrupt hospitals.  Sanders then pointed to the successful Canadian universal healthcare system which is far less costly and which did not result in hospitals going bankrupt.  While Warren supported Bernie’s plan and rationale, the centrists and moderates generally preferred adding a public option to the existing Affordable Care Act (ACA) and cited the potential political problem of angering union workers (by eliminating their collectively bargained private insurance) as their rationale against the Sanders plan.  From my point of view, this disagreement is counterproductive to the goal of defeating Trump in 2020.  Yes, universal healthcare would be the best choice for the nation;  but, I would gladly support a public option if that was the only politically feasible way to improve our healthcare system.

The other debate topics were far less contentious, although the Green New Deal proposal to mitigate the looming specter of catastrophic climate change by restructuring the economy got some pushback from centrists and moderates.

From a debate performance perspective, I thought all the candidates did as well or better than they did in June.  Sanders was much stronger.  Warren and Buttigieg were powerful and convincing figures.  Klobuchar and Ryan were solid if not spectacular.  O’Rourke and Hickenlooper were somewhat lackluster.  Bullock was quirky but compelling.  Delaney, although forceful, seems at odds with the Democratic Party base.  Williamson again looked out of place, especially with her peculiar “love” message, even though she spoke quite effectively.

See also:  Fact check: CNN’s Democratic debate

Today’s other news:

From:  France calls Trump’s threats to tax French wine ‘completely moronic’

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron officially signed into law a bill that allows the French government to levy special taxes on certain revenues that large American tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple earn in France.

That incensed President Trump, who immediately threatened a trade war of sorts, by imposing retaliatory tariffs on French wines.

U.S. judge blocks Medicaid work requirements in New Hampshire

Judge lets asylum-seekers lawsuit continue against Trump administration

6 thoughts on “Second Democratic debate (part 1) was much better than the first debate

    • Yep. Warren has been really impressive. She has become a much better candidate in recent years. I was relieved to see the anti-socialism rhetoric toned down last night. But, you’re right about Dems. Stupid is as stupid does.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. Nice analysis.

    Personally, I continue to like Pete. He may not be the strongest as far as experience and/or platform, but I like what he says. Yes, I know he most likely won’t end up in the “finals,” but …

    Quite frankly, if Bernie were to win the election, I’m not sure I could watch him in interviews or in the State of the Union address. Way too emotional and his arm movements irritate the heck out of me.

    For me, no one offered a platform that had me dancing in the aisles. Plus, I could see too many loopholes that the Repukes could drive a truck through. Hopefully this will change as the field narrows.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Play some music if you want to dance, Nan! I’m way too old to dance anymore especially for politicians – lol!

      Still, I’m very impressed with mayor Pete. I think he’d be a great candidate to run against Trump. This may surprise you, but this is the strongest field of Democratic candidates I’ve seen since perhaps 1968. No presidential candidate’s platform or style is immune from being exploited by the other party – Democrat or Republican; and, Trump’s reelection bid looks especially weak. However, it’s much too early to start prognosticating. There’s a long way to go.

      Liked by 1 person

      • One other comment … Maryanne may be full of woo-woo, but I think she did fairly well. The audience responded favorably to several of her remarks. Of course, she’ll never stand on the same debate platform with tRumpsky, but I think it’s a mistake to dismiss her simply because of her “spirituality.” Besides, her desire to promote a more loving approach to life instead of the anger and bitterness isn’t all bad …

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s