Watching their debate one thing became quite clear in listening to their comments directed at each other, inaccuracy was the word of the night while change was no where in sight. by Gary Wood
(conservative)
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Is it possible that the two leading candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination are totally inaccurate in what they have to say about each other? According to their comments it appears to be the case. Senator Clinton started early with the issue of health care stating, "So we should have a good debate that uses accurate information, not false, misleading, and discredited information, especially on something as important as whether or not we will achieve quality, affordable health care for everyone." This rhetoric left me wondering how many of the previous 19 debates were based on false, misleading, and discrediting information.
Senator Obama was quick to reply on the accuracy of his opponent when defending against her attacks that his health care plan would leave 15 million people without coverage. "According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it, and I think it is inaccurate." This early exchange set the tone for the rest of the debate. Clinton was still fuming over a flyer the Obama campaign sent out with, in her opinion, inaccurate information. Countering the claim Obama stated, "And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care." In the next breath he said his opponent saying her plan covers everyone is not accurate. He did say he was more accurate based on the information they have since the Clinton plan has not been clear on enforcement of her mandates.
Negative attacks by Clinton were the next bit of inaccuracy mentioned by Obama. "But I think it's very important to understand the context of this, and that is that Senator Clinton has -- her campaign, at least -- has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robocalls, flyers, television ads, radio calls. And, you know, we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate." This not only countered her accuracy claims but also alluded to his perception her campaign was whining about areas his campaign simply dealt with as the nature of these campaigns.
At this point the voters either already casting their votes or preparing to cast their votes for one of these two candidates has to pause and wonder why the final two Democratic Party candidates accept as natural negative, inaccurate attacks upon one another. Both have been vocal in being agents of change. Is this an indication of the change either will deliver to the citizens of this country if they are entrusted with the Presidency?
It didn't stop with health care as the moderators moved to another key focus in Ohio, NAFTA. After Clinton complained to Brian Williams about always being asked the first question on any issue and mentioning the Saturday Night Live skit about moderators asking if Obama is comfortable and needs a pillow she stated, "You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
Quickly the Illinois Senator, and possible future President, countered, "Well, I think that it is inaccurate for Senator Clinton to say that she's always opposed NAFTA." He was right, as Tim Russert pointed out, since both candidates have made claims that NAFTA was good at some point in their political careers, especially Hillary Clinton.
Inaccuracy, as an adjective, is defined as not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; not precise; not exact. We've endured a long primary campaign already with nearly a year ahead of us. At what point should we the people expect each of the leading candidates, no matter what party they are from, to be accurate? Each made claims the other is not clear enough on their policies which is accurate for these two candidates as well as the leading Republican, Senator John McCain. It is up to the voters, then, to base the most important vote in recent memory on a candidate that provides enough detail on the issues citizens and opponents are able to accurately determine which most closely aligns with their beliefs. If none of these provides the level of accurate details necessary then voters will have to search for a new candidate that will.
Don't count on a great deal more clarity or on tuning into any debate where those squaring off will accuse the other of being too accurate in their comments. Politics are geared toward limited information. You'll hear them say they are very clear and voters know their plans yet if they were so clear their opponents would be able to be more accurate, unless the opponent chooses to not be in conformity with fact or truth. This is not a quality to embrace in our future President. After this debate the one thing that became clear, if a voter is really expecting change from either of these candidates we won't find it during the campaign which strongly indicates we won't find it once the oath of office is administered either.
If you enjoyed this article give it a thumbs up, bookmark it to your favorite site from the drop-down menu and suggest it to a friend. Thanks for taking the time to visit Nolan Chart, do come back often for the latest from all political views.
2008 by Gary Wood - Permission to copy with attribution granted.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gary Wood only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gary Wood is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Oh, come on. You can get a copy of Obama's Blueprint for Change, a very nice PDF document, right from his site, with all the specifics and details about exactly what he's going to do.
.. oh, wait. It's more empty speeches. And he says the problem with the country his wife isn't proud of is "not enough taxes on the rich."
The problem with Clinton and Obama is that when you're running on nothing but "taking money from those making it and handing it to those who don't do anything" is that you can't AFFORD to get into the details.
What do you expect them to say? If you wanted accuracy from them they'd have to say they thought Castro didn't go far enough.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
