User avatar
PA110
Topic Author
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:30 am

26Feb Clinton/Obama Debate: What Did You Think?

Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:43 am

I just finished watching the Clinton/Obama debate held in Cleveland. Following the debate, MSNBC was interviewing various commentators, and one of them said something that really annoyed me. I don't recall her name, but she essentially said that McCain won, because the debate sucked all the fire and energy from the Democratic campaign, as if she was disappointed that there wasn't a knock-down drag out fight. I enjoyed the debate, particularly this unstructured format, which really served to showcase the candidates and how they think and react. I was really impressed with Obama's thoughtful approach, and really turned off by Clinton's whiny complaints. I'm a little annoyed that the press is constantly looking for sparks instead of a real insight into who would make the better leader.

For those that actually watched the debate, what did you think?

[Edited 2008-02-26 20:45:58]
It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
 
avek00
Posts: 3155
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: 26Feb Clinton/Obama Debate: What Did You Think?

Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:01 pm

Hillary won on substance, as usual. Confirmed yet again why I'll be voting for McCain if she isn't the nominee.
Live life to the fullest.
 
n521na
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 6:51 am

RE: 26Feb Clinton/Obama Debate: What Did You Think?

Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:43 pm



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 1):
Hillary won on substance, as usual. Confirmed yet again why I'll be voting for McCain if she isn't the nominee.

You can't just say she won, you have to explain why.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: 26Feb Clinton/Obama Debate: What Did You Think

Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:17 pm

I was intrigued by both candidates commitment to order Canada and Mexico to "re-negotiate NAFTA, or else we'll opt out." That gave me a few laughs on a number of fronts.

1. When you re-negotiate something, the other side(s) gets to throw some items on the table as well. Like maybe a BINDING dispute settlement process that the US can't walk away from when it loses. Both Clinton and Obama make it sound like the renegotiating is a piece of cake, America gets everything it wants, Canada and Mexico get nothing. The club is, of course, "opting out."

2. Obama blames NAFTA for jobs disappearing overseas. Overseas? Did someone dig a canal I haven't heard about? Most of the manufacturing jobs (from Canada too) are disappearing to Asia. NAFTA has nothing to do with that. All three countries have gained and lost jobs through NAFTA.

3. Why didn't anyone ask them what "opting out" of NAFTA would do for the US? It might do a lot for us, because we would no longer be obligated to sell oil, gas, electricity to the US at market prices and with no restrictions. That might present a long term opportunity to sell the oil, at least, to somebody else who doesn't want to "opt out." At the very least, we regain the right to sell it or not -- and tax it if it works for us.

4. Why didn't anyone ask them what "opting out" might mean for the 38 US states (including Ohio) for whom Canada is their largest export customer? Right now NAFTA guarantees unfettered, tariff free access to a market of more than 30 million. Do they really want to piss that away?

On the whole, I've found the quality of all these debates sadly lacking. They throw out these remarks about NAFTA to pander to voters in a state that, for god knows what reason, thinks NAFTA is the source of all their problems. They spend too much time watching (and believing) Lou Dobbs. Neither Obama nor Clinton are going to touch NAFTA because, as their economic advisers will tell them, there's far too much to lose. Labour standards? The US would have to raise its standards to meet Canada's; those jokers think it's only Mexico that poses a problem in NAFTA. Hell yes, lets renegotiate.

Other than that -- not a whole lot of substance and yes, the media focuses on the little jabs and jibes. The last guy who promised -- during an election of course -- to renegotiate NAFTA was prime minister Jean Chretien. He got elected on that promise -- and then happily signed on the dotted line when Mexico was brought in. So much for scrapping NAFTA.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: 26Feb Clinton/Obama Debate: What Did You Think?

Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:09 am

Oops -- Obama and Clinton have already sparked an ominous response. This is what happens when politicians pander to the uninformed masses; their words have unintended consequences. Good-bye preferential energy treatment.


Oil would be on table if NAFTA reopened: Emerson hints
JULIAN BELTRAME
The Canadian Press
February 27, 2008 at 2:43 PM EST
Ottawa — Trade Minister David Emerson suggested the United States has a sweet deal over access to Canada's oil under the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying the two Democratic presidential candidates calling for renegotiations may not know just how good the U.S. has it under the deal.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...7.wemerson0227/BNStory/energy/home
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, PacificBeach88, PanHAM and 12 guests