Debate wrap-up

While I don't think a clear winner emerged from last night's debate, I do think Obama achieved what he had to: he didn't screw up and was able to confidently hold his own. Hillary, however, without delivering a knockout blow, did not. This was her last chance to show the American people, but obviously more than anything Texans and Ohioans, why she's the only one suitable for the job. She didn't do that. Refreshingly, she also didn't resort to her normal mudslinging (that you have to expect to see a heap of in the lead up to March 4). Anyways, a couple issues raised last night that caught my attention...

1) Israel/Palestine: Don't quote me on this, but to my knowledge, last night's debate was the first time even a word has been muttered about the issue in any of the 20 Democratic debates--let alone anywhere on the campaign trail over the last ten months. Obama's commitment to defending the US' relationship with Israel was brought into question when Tim Russert inferred that Obama's refusal to "reject," and only denounce, Louis Farakhan and his anti-semitic comments, could isolate the Jewish community from his campaign. Obama, basically lifting an excerpt from a speech he gave last week to a group of Jewish community leaders in Ohio, said this:

I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our strongest allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the US is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.

And that was it.

How can we expect his words to be translated into policy when elected President? Who the hell knows? But, a couple things can be culled from his response: 1) He long ago accepted that no candidate, at least for a while, can have the slightest hope of winning the White House if he/she says anything that in any way suggests ending the US' lopsided backing of Israel and 2) instead of referring to Israel, as many have, as the only true democracy in the region, Obama called them one, of presumably many, of the US' Middle East allies. Overall, his response is totally safe and avoids stepping on any toes. But, it doesn't exactly jive with his whole "change politics as usual" pledge. Like Chris has reminded me many a time, what is unique about Obama aren't so much his individual policy positions, but his willingness to listen to all concerned parties and earnestly figure something out that appeases everybody. Let's hope we're right.

2) I don't feel the need to go into much detail here, but NAFTA entered the debate for the second time in a row--it's not coincidence, both debates were held in states where blue-collar workers have felt the full wrath of NAFTA's proven tendency to facilitate companies in shipping jobs overseas. In covering the candidates' stances on this issue, the media seems most concerned with Hillary's awkward attempts to distance herself from it, while not upsetting Bill--and the few supporters that he hasn't yet scared off. Just as importantly, I think, is how neither candidate to date has said much of anything on the tremendously negative impact that NAFTA, and other similar trade deals, continue to have on dirt poor farmers in the countries that have, under enormous US pressure, entered such agreements.

I'm not here to suggest that Hillary and Obama deep down don't respect 1) Palestinians and their right to just treatment and 2) all those getting totally shafted by our ambitious trade ventures. In fact, I know they do. That's why it's all the more frustrating that neither has been especially willing--when it's not particularly politically convenient--to come to the defense of those people most devastated by US policy. I'll stop now. I'm ranting.

Anyway...Obama '08 baby!