A Scratch or Potentially A Mortal Wound?



If nothing else, the Democratic debate has drawn the first blood.





We may have encountered a watershed of sorts at the Democratic Forum the other night.

It might have been triggered by Senator Dodd’s discussion about eligibility which he thought was not getting enough attention from the pundits. He pointed that out that a candidate that has such high negatives that fifty percent of the people surveyed won’t vote for is not something to be dismissed.



It was clear that the candidates were not going to give Hillary another pass this night. If Dodd’s comments didn’t do the trick, certainly Edwards talk about trust did saying that you could not have one face for the Primary and another for the general election; that people wanted to know who their candidate really was. This did not stop Hillary from shifting the focus to her experience whereas this triggered comments from both Governor Richardson and Joe Biden pointing out that they had more relevant experience than the other candidates.



Governor Richardson, who’s entreaty on fair play seemed to hint cynically at some kind of behinds the scene deal while Obama continued on the thread of bringing change to government and that based upon his experience at the State and Federal level, he was best equipped to provide the direction for change. Obama was trying to draw blood but he was looking as if we was better at dancing around the subject than scoring hits.



Yet, the most effective blow against the presumed leader, Hillary, was made by Edwards after Hillary was asked about whether she supported New York governor’s plan to issue licenses to illegal immigrants.



According to Edwards, it seemed that Hillary stood on both sides of the issue and he claimed he couldn’t understand whether she was for or against the licensing policy. He

hit on the argument that that is the problem with Hillary, that you never know where she stands on an issue inferring that she was less than candid. At that point, O’bama jumped in saying that Hillary was not clear on where she stood on the issues.



Edwards had previously brought up the subject of Hillary’s vagueness when he asked how she could claim that she was not rushing to war yet she handed Bush the vote he needed—along with 75 other Senators who also voted with Bush, that Bush could use to start a War with Iraq. He wondered how somebody who already was taken in by a vote to go to War with Iraq could repeat the process knowing that she was giving Bush carte blanche.



That argument was later reinforced with Hillary’s vagueness on the issue of issuing licenses to illegal aliens.



Hillary response was that she understood the Governor’s need to issue the licenses to protect the American people and she supported what he was doing but by the same token that while she supported the governor’s actions, she would not do what he was doing in so many words.



For many, it underscored other democrat’s concerns about not being able to pin her down on an issue and O’bama returned to that argument several times.



The issue of her being able to stand up on a particular issue and not waffle is considered critical in an election and few would willingly support somebody’s views they didn’t understand. The punch and counterpunch from Edwards, if nothing else, still raised questions and revealed a chink in Hillary’s armor.





It is expected that many will now be returning to what she said in the past and view her arguments from a fresh perspective. They will need to assess whether she has purposely obfuscated positions on the issues To this critic at least, it seems that what started out as a minor difference of opinion may have pinpointed a serious deficiency. It all depends how the voters see it. Did she waffle? Was she incapable of leveling on the issues?

Was she playing it safe? If her lack of clarity is seen as an intentional ploy to deceive by the voters, this rift may widen. On the other hand, it may just play the other way inasmuch as some may see it as Hillary standing up to ‘the boys’ and not giving an inch, remaining firm and strong all the time without her voice as much as wavering. A good barometer of a future leader and one who is strong and resolute!.



At the very least, it seems to a reminder that the Primary is not over yet and that it is still possible for someone like Biden or Richardson to come from left field and move up in the polls. Joe Biden’s remarks about Giuliani as a man who can’t utter a sentence without a noun, a verb and mention of 9/11 was a good example.



It remains to be seen whether Hillary’s gaff will remain just a scratch in close in combat or will become infected and mortal.



There are still two months for the voter to decide.



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon


THE COMMITTEE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE
LAAGroup@AOL.com
The Sale of Books and Donations support our work.
For a complete and current book list emailed to you, please
contact LAAGroup@aol.com
No Charge.