My Thoughts on the AFL-CIO Democratic Debate August 7, 2007

I watched the Democratic AFL-CIO debate held in Chicago last night. Overall, it was a good debate, I just think we don't learn that much about the candidates in the debate format. All we really learn about them is who is the best debater or orator.

I think that 90 seconds is not enough time to articulate a response to a question about a complex issue. I recently had to give my position on a significant issue at a County Board of Supervisors meeting. I was given 3 minutes. By the time that I had given my thanks for letting me speak, my time was half gone. This was true at the debates as well – each candidate had to thank the AFL-CIO for having the debate, and they wanted to thank our troops in Iraq, and to remember the miners who had died before, and the ones that we are searching for in Utah.

Keith Olbermann did a great job as the moderator. He asked some really important questions, and he tried to hold everyone to their allotted time. He also gave chances to those who had been personally attacked, to respond. I was glad to see that many of the candidates fought to complete their sentences when their time was up.

I watched Chris Matthews "After the Debate" commentary. Sometimes I wondered if I watched the same debate. Chris has a way about talking about women that I find offensive. I have heard him remark how attractive he thinks Ann Coulter is when she has been on his show. Tonight, he was making similar remarks about Hillary. Would he say that about the male candidates that are on the stage? It's not relevant Chris!

It seems that because some polls have Hillary Clinton more than 20 points ahead, the media treats her like she has "special status". Yet a recent poll showed that while women like Hillary more than men, older, usually married women are skeptical about her: Women Supportive but Skeptical of Clinton, Poll Says .

Hillary is definitely well prepared, and she is truly a polished speaker. She has been preparing for the role of President for at least 17 years. Her experience in the White House gave her unique exposure to the Executive Branch. I still don't trust her. I remember things a little differently than she does. She spoke about how she was used to taking on the Right Wing Machine – she had done it for 15 years. But isn't this the same Hillary who said that it was the Right Wing Machine that was going after Bill years ago? Is she saying that she is tough enough to take on the Right Wing Machine today because they attacked her husband because of his infidelity?

Bill Clinton campaigned on Health Care reform in 1992. He set up a task force that put Hillary Clinton as head of that committee. In 1993, Mrs. Clinton testified before a Democratically controlled Congress on this very important and complex issue. Those very people, the lobbyists, the insurance companies, that Hillary says do not influence her, were able to kill this legislation. How can she believe that most Americans will not find lobbyist's contributions responsible for her not having her own plan today?

How can Hillary continue to defend lobbyists as everyday people. We have insurance companies who do not want to pay for health care for their patients – (see "SICKO"); homeowners insurance companies that write policies, for earthquakes, flood, and hurricanes, and then they try to avoid paying them. How do these companies manage to get away these insurance plans? These problems came to light during the 1994 Northridge earthquake – if these problems with insurers had been brought to light during the Clinton Administration, then maybe coverage would have been better during Hurricane Katrina.

How can Hillary say that she wants to sweep Washington clean – clean of what? Republicans? Former Representatives often become lobbyists. To make Washington clean, the lobbyists need to go too. Legislation needs to be written that prevent people like Dick Cheney from working for the government, making legislation friendly to a particular business, then ending up as CEO or in another similar position in that company.

There should not be no bid contracts – whether in Iraq, or in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And we certainly should not have war profiteering, or companies making big profits at the expense of those who have lost everything in a disaster. This cannot be the American way.

Hillary made comments about not wanting to take on the Democrats, yet she had made remarks prior to the debate that Barack Obama's comments were inappropriate for a presidential candidate. I think that Barack was strong in his position that as president, he would not be afraid to fight the "right war" – to go after the terrorists even if they were in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan

Hillary told Barack Obama that we should not talk about going into Pakistan to find Bin Laden. She said that we should be afraid because Pakistan has nuclear capabilities, and that if we unsettle Musharaff, then we will have a more dangerous government controlling those nuclear weapons. Yet President Clinton did go into this region in search of Bin Laden, he did authorize the launch of missiles in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border, even though he knew that not just Pakistan has nuclear capabilities, but India, Russia, China, and North Korea have them as well.

We need allies in the region which I am sure that both Barack and Hillary realize. I believe that both of them really wouldn't consider using nuclear weapons quite unlike the posturing of many Republicans about Iran.

Hillary was really articulate about the problems with trading with China. Yet who signed the Trade Agreement with China – President Clinton. And who signed the NAFTA Treaty – President Clinton. These two trade agreements have sent our jobs and factories to Mexico, China, and other places where labor is cheap, and corporations make more profits.

After the debate, Chris Matthews interviewed representatives for Barack, Hillary, and John Edwards. In doing so, he left out the opportunity for us to get to know the under dogs better. Frankly, I have supported Joe Biden's plan to get out of Iraq for years. I always feel that what Hillary does is borrow from what seems are the best of every other candidate's plans, then she acts as if those were her plans from the beginning.

She announced plans on green energy programs. I have never heard her mention it before. It is like she knows that Al Gore will enter the race one day, and she needs to say that she already has a plan.

In the final analysis, there were some surprises. I thought that Hillary and Barack held their own. It seemed like they were fighting for the top two positions. That took emphasis away from how well everyone else did

I think that Joe Biden as well as John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich made their point about their support of unions, pensions, and health care benefits. Dennis Kucinich seemed the most organized of the night in terms of legislation that he had introduced for single payer health care, and his plan on how to get out of Iraq.

One of the best points of the evening was when John Edwards was asked by a disabled person what we should do when a company goes bankrupt to avoid paying a pension, or someone who has worked at a job for more than 30 years who can't afford to pay for health insurance for his wife. These are the kinds of issues that John Edwards talks about in his Universal Health Care Plan. We all should remember this man's situation when we vote.

One of the main thoughts that you are left with after this debate is how do we reform funding elections, and how do we get rid of lobbyists. Washington cannot change as long as big money continues to fund the status quo.