The First Meaningful Democratic Debate? UPDATED

ANO

OK. I actually sat down in my Death Chair, had lots of coffee available and decided not to live blog this debate because I wanted to pay attention to that which was being said. When it was all said and done, I might as well of watched old reruns of Star Trek.

Each candidate more or less agreed with each other, they both beat around the bushes (no pun intended) and neither one had anything substantial to say. All I heard were more platitudes from both of them. It was painful and sadly comical.

The NYT Caucus has the run down.

Wrapup: Maybe we were expecting too much - an intergalactic showdown. Instead, it was more of a chess game, with each side moving forward and occasionally knocking off the other's pieces. Instead of ending in checkmate, they ended with a hands-across-the-water moment.

There's some chatter on television and in the blogosphere that perhaps Mrs. Clinton's closing words were, in fact, a valedictory speech by a candidate who knows it's over.

She described a moment a few months ago when she saw disfigured soldiers, whom she remembered vividly. "The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country," she said.

"Whatever happens," she added, "we're going to be fine," echoing John Edwards's oft-used closing debate sentiment. "You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about."

Her campaign is highlighting her closing, sending out a video of it (which went on for 3 minutes and 18 seconds, relatively long compared with Mr. Obama's final statement) and saying in a press release, "It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice."

Mr. Obama's most effective moment: when he said a campaign is about more than policy.

"Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions," he said. "But if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government, and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions that have plagued our politics for so long, then we will continue to see the kind of gridlock and non-performance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways."

Except for her Xerox line, they both refrained from really sharp words that could be used against each other in a general election. But it was Mrs. Clinton who seemed to feel obligated to say, "No matter what happens in this contest - and I am honored." She reached across the table for his hand. "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored." [...]

Emptiness and crickets. As the opening line of this "wrap up" states, maybe we expected too much. I expected more. I expected something different. I expected the two DNC candidates remaining to actually present their version of The How they were going to bring about the much vaunted Change and what that Change is going to be.

Way back in 2006, we heard all about Change and, they got it. America got their Change but what has come of it? If the Change in 2006 is unacceptable now and it didn't work, and these same individuals that were demanding that Change failed in bringing about the Change are now running on Change again for the whatever It Is that Needs Changing, can they bring about this Change and can they be trusted? Did not these same DNC-ites fail in all of 2007?

Barak has zero experience. Hillary has no experience. Barak wants Change. Hillary Wants Change. This leaves Electibility. Both Senators have a little Senator experience but no executive experience. Both are juniors. The electibilty of either will hinge on emotional tripe.

To break the monotony of this debate analysis, Ace is drunk blogging and discovered an interesting poll.

Anyway, on a more serious note, Ace is of the same opinion as myself:

Post-Debate Analysis: So Boring It Just May Matter

Boring is an understatement. I expected more. Silly me.

From American Power:

[...] The more I watch the Democratic debates, the more intense is my distrust of these two candidates. On healthcare, Iraq, and fiscal policy, I can't imagine a more left-wing discourse from any major candidate in presidential elections in the last 50 years (and I'm not forgetting Michael Dukakis and George McGovern). [...]

The only item that I heard that set the two apart was that Barak said that how the affect of change will come about is different. I was waiting for The How but it never came. More platitudes to the mindless dweebs that worship the ground he walks on.

At one point, Barak said that American Troops had to arm themselves with stolen Taliban weapons. Stolen? This guy is a nut case and this is going to come back and haunt this idiot. He said he "heard this from an Army Captain". I am sure he can verify this, correct?

[...] You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon - supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

Now, that's a consequence of bad judgment. And you know, the question is, on the critical issues that we face right now, who's going to show the judgment to lead? [...]

It certainly isn't a Barak that is qualified to lead. A box of whale dung has better judgment than this lying worm. Pathetic. The Weekly Standard has some questions about this as well.

Hillary described Barak's Xerox moment and the two scuffled a bit but Barak said his mentor said he could use the verbiage. Ja. Sure.

[...] "I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words then they should be your own words... [...]

[...] "Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, its change you can Xerox." [...]

I think this flopped on Hillary. Not because Barak is an unethical twit but that Hillary is no better.

You can all the buzzards and carrying on at memeorandum...and the New York Slimes has an odd take here - I guess they didn't actually watch it. The debate transcript is here...Eric Scheie from Pajamas Media was expecting more as well.

This debate was very disappointing. I expected more from theoretical intelligent people.

[UPDATE]

From Amy Proctor: Soldier Refutes Obama Assertion That Under-Equipped U.S. Troops Confiscate Taliban Weapons (I knew Obama was a lying dweeb!)

[...] Judgement to lead? Let's start with telling the truth. The U.S. Army is not under-supplied nor would a U.S. soldier EVER use a substandard Taliban weapon. Prove it, Obama.

My husband, MSG Proctor, wrote from Iraq that Obama has his facts completely wrong and that his words are a diversion:

1. CPT's command companies, not platoons.
2. Platoons are not divided up to go to 2 different theaters, EVER.
3. There is no ammo shortage in OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan). Many platoons are deployed to remote sites in the mountains and require aerial resupply. Those resupply missions are dependent on favorable weather conditions.
4. Taliban weapons are usually not very good and we would not use them without a very high level of command approval.
5. The CDR in Chief is so high above the platoon level that comment doesn't even deserve a response.

He's just trying to exploit democratic boilerplate about OIF being a diversion from "the good war" (OEF). He's wrong on many levels. We are winning in OIF. I just left Baghdad. We have everything we need except for our OWN government to be united behind victory in OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom). [...]

Like I have been saying, Obama is a blithering fool.