Democrat Primary Debate

I started to get interested in the upcoming Presidential Election last Jan/Feb. when Barack Obama made an intent to run and started a huge grass roots campaign while not taking any money from special interest groups. I remember thinking last June that Clinton was unelectable. It has little to do with her being a woman than it does her being stuck in the democrat political machine. I enjoyed listening to John Edwards and his comments on the poor but his $400 haircut kind of turned me off to him. Three weeks ago a debate was held in Philadelphia. Clinton had a poor outing. It appeared that she was staged, gave pat answers, and proved to give inconsistent answers on certain issues. She started to drop in the polls and Obama seemed to be on a surge.

Another debate was held last night. I was very interested in it, so I went to a friends house and watched it with about 8 others. To be honest, it was a lackluster performance from the top three candidates. Clinton seems to have come ahead only because she didn't stumble. Obama and Edwards didn't seem to make up any ground because they didn't stand out. However, I think a few things are worth mentioning.

There was a question last night involving human rights and national security. The question asked, "Would you place our national security above human rights." Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton said similar things. The job of the President is to ensure the security of our own. We are to do this while upholding the Constitution. Later analysts said that Clinton was looking toward the general election against the Republicans so they couldn't use her response against her. (The Republicans seem to be big on national security above any rights of anyone). I thought Obama's answer was intriguing though. He didn't give a yes or no answer. This, in a debate, sometimes comes across as a weakness but I hope people were listening. He said he doesn't think that national security and human rights are necessarily incompatible. One doesn't need be to placed above the other. This logic seems to make sense to me. Right now the Bush administration has polarized America with his war agenda. Not only are we in an unjust war in Iraq, but there has been talk of military conflict with Iran as well (this would be a grave mistake). However, while we are killing in the middle-east we are neglecting other countries like the Sudan and Burma where vasts amounts of people are now left homeless, injured, orphaned, or dead (not to neglect the other 2 Billion people living on less than $2 a day). The world has seen our ugly foreign policy and our trampling of human rights in the middle-east and places like Guantanamo. Obama, I think, rightly associates the building and support of human rights not only because it is the right thing to do, but because as a result it will in turn make us more secure. If people aren't dying, if they have enough to eat, or even enough to live, they are less likely to harbor bitterness. Even more, America is even the cause of that bitterness in several instances. Jim Wallis writes in "God's Politics" that "the developed World will never be secure until the developing world also achieves some economic security." I think there is some truth found in that statement.

It is my hope that this kind of Politics becomes more evident. I hope that Obama's words are heard for what they are (Bill Richardson said something similar). I still think Clinton is unelectable. She may be ahead in the Democratic primaries but recent polls show that the vast majority of independents and republicans would not vote for her. On the other side, Obama holds the votes of more independents and even some moderate Republicans than any other candidate. Just words to think about.