Democrat Debate Winner and Loser

I watched the Democrat presidential debate last night and was once again struck by the difference between it and the largely substance free Republican debates that focus mostly on sound bites and pandering to the racism, religious extremism and general misogyny of the GOP base.  Last night - as in the prior Democrat debate - real substance was discussed and when there were vague generalities, most often they came from Bernie Sanders.  As a piece in the Washington Post notes, the night overall went to Hillary Clinton.  Here are some excerpts:

Winners:

* Hillary Clinton: Beginning to end, this was Clinton's best debate of the election.  In the first half hour, Clinton poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast the Vermont senator as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.  She was calm and cool throughout -- even when fighting on Sanders's home turf on wage inequality. Clinton also effectively cast Sanders as insufficiently loyal to President Obama, a point that will resound with black voters among whom Obama remains extremely popular.

Clinton was helped by the dearth of questions about uncomfortable topics for her (paid speeches, State Department investigations); when pressed on her super PAC being financed heavily by a few individuals, Clinton was uncomfortable and gave one of her worst answers of the night. But, those moments were few and far between. If she -- and her campaign -- were knocked back after her massive loss in New Hampshire, it didn't show.  She was in total control all night.

Losers:

* Bernie Sanders: If the challenge for Sanders was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal Thursday night. Sanders did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past -- a low bar -- but he struggled to score clean hits on Clinton during the first hour of the debate, which focused exclusively on domestic policy, which should have been his strong suit. Sanders, at times during that first hour, sounded like a broken record -- citing millionaires and billionaires and Wall Street to explain almost anything he was asked.

Then there was Sanders's insistence that he would be better on race relations than Obama, a slip that you can be sure that the Clinton campaign will make sure African American voters hear about (and then hear about some more) in the coming days and weeks.

Perhaps Sanders' biggest problem, as noted by the husband who is usually good at picking up on average voter reactions is that Sanders comes across as always angry - something that in general election could prove damaging. 

Reflections on The Democratic Presidential Debate

Perhaps the most striking thing about the first Democratic presidential debate last night was the fact that real issues and policy considerations were discussed in sharp contrast to the Republican debates which so far have largely consisted of sound bites pushing the favorite racist and paranoia based concerns of the increasingly delusional GOP base and/or taking cheap shots at other candidates.  It's as if this debate involved adults versus the GOP debates where loud mouth bullies and story tellers have held sway.  The contrast is striking and ought to make thinking voters wonder WTF is wrong with the GOP field of clowns.   Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders dominated the debate with the others making some points but nonetheless in the shadows of Clinton and Sanders.  Hillary did a better job than I expected.  A column in the New York Times reflects thoughts similar to my own.  Here are highlights:

I never doubted that Hillary Clinton had many talents.  I just didn’t know that seamstress was among them.

There were moments in the first Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night when she threaded the needle as delicately and perfectly as a politician could.

The debate’s moderator, Anderson Cooper, noted that she’d told some audiences that she was a progressive but extolled her moderation in front of others. Wasn’t she just a chameleon, flashing whatever colors suited her at a given moment?

“I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done,” she said strongly but not stridently. “I know how to find common ground and I know how to stand my ground.”

Even when she was confronted anew by her vote in the Senate long ago to authorize the invasion of Iraq, she was neither defiant nor apologetic, steering a smooth midcourse by recalling that at debates in 2008, Barack Obama had attacked her for that. “After the election,” she pointed out, “he asked me to become secretary of state. He valued my judgment.”

The subject of Iraq caused her less grief than Sanders suffered on gun control, when not only Clinton but also Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, rejected his explanation of votes in the Senate against various bills and his insistence that he was representing rural areas with gun cultures, not a nationwide electorate. It was clumsy because he presents himself as a creature of pure principle, immune to political convenience.

But on Tuesday night an odd sort of role reversal occurred. For much of the debate, Sanders somehow came across as the embattled incumbent, targeted by the other four candidates, while Clinton came across as the energetic upstart.

It was as poised a performance as she’s finessed in a long time, and while I’ve just about given up making predictions about this confounding election — I never thought Donald Trump would last so long, and I never saw Ben Carson coming — I think Clinton benefited more from Tuesday’s stage than Sanders did.

She mixed confidence and moments of passion with instances of humor, and her manner was less didactic and robotic than it can often be.

[S]he was seldom rattled, though the discussion of her use of a home-brewed server for her emails as secretary of state did prompt a visible stiffening of her posture, a conspicuous strain in her smile. Will she ever, ever find language that takes full ownership of her mistake and that puts real flesh on her continued claim that she’s being as transparent as possible?

It was perhaps Sanders’s best. Surprisingly, he called for an end to talk about the emails, saying there were more important issues to focus on. 

And she benefited from the visual contrast when she stood side by side on TV next to Sanders, with his slight hunch, his somewhat garbled style of speech, and a moment when he cupped his hand behind his ear, signaling that he hadn’t heard the question.

He evoked yesterday. Despite many decades in the political trenches, she didn’t. It was a nifty trick. Turns out she’s a bit of a sorceress as well.

Shallowness in the Gay Community

I know that there are shallow people in all walks of life and in people of every sexual orientation. However, the gay community at times seems to have an inordinate number of members who evaluate others solely based on looks and wardrobe, never seeing the inner person and their often wonderful attributes. What brings this to mind is that a good friend of mine recently had the experience of overhearing himself being trashed by what can only have been shallow, bitter queens who apparently only feel good about themselves when putting someone else down. Dishing someone else apparently helps them avoid looking at themselves and seeing all the flaws and inadequacies, not to mention lack of any positive contributions they have made to the gay community, not to mention larger society.

Meanwhile, my friend is a wonderful guy, is outspoken on gay rights and other issues, and has been an amazing help to me at some of the low points in my journey and has even offered my refuge if I needed. In addition, he has a sharp mind and a sardonic wit that never fails to make me laugh. His only shortcoming – at least in the minds of shallow bitter queen types – is that he is no longer a 20 something club boy. The reality is than NONE of us remain that way forever. Hence, there needs to be some substance behind the pretty façade which WILL fade with the passage of time.

I identify with my friend’s sense of hurt and betrayal by “family” in the way he heard himself trashed. Not having come out until age 49, in the minds of these bitchy queens types no doubt I was a “has been” before I was ever out of the gate. Often, I felt that gay life had passed me by. Yet, meanwhile, I have had experiences and gained perspectives that such empty people will likely never know. Moreover, since coming out I have truly tried to make a difference, be it through involvement in Equality Virginia, working to found HRBOR, debating against Virginia’s Marriage Amendment, or being out socially and professionally, etc. My friend has likewise boldly lived as a gay man. It is the older gays who have paved the way for the increased level of acceptance and tolerance now enjoyed by the younger generation of gays. Would that some of them would be able to grasp that fact and show some respect.

I hope that some day more in the gay community will come to value substance over a pretty face which may well “have nothing behind the eyes,” to quote another friend. I also find it very sad this type of shallow, bitchy queen type is incapable of seeing humanity in others and understanding that all of us are children of the same creator be he/she called God, Allah or whatever.