The Kodak Theater Debate

A few items of note from last night's Democratic Debate between frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Old Man Gravel is still out there somewhere):

On Health Care:
Senator Clinton claims that, under her plan, she would "pay for this is to take the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire on people making more than $250,000 a year. That would raise about $55 billion...The other $55 billion would come from the modernization and the efficiencies that I believe we can obtain." Unfortunately for her, the math doesn't add up. Even raising taxes to previous levels on the 5.8 million Americans who make only $126K and up would raise about $30 billion at the most. Second, she has never said what these modernizations and efficiencies are. How come she would be able to find them, and the rest of us haven't?
Senator Obama claims that the main difference between his plan and Clinton's is that his plan is "voluntary," as opposed to Clinton's "mandatory" plan. When pressed on how his plan would be funded if millions of Americans refused to join, he would solve the problem "By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place." So his plan is "voluntary" yet would penalize people for not having it.

On Immigration:
Senator Obama: "I think to suggest somehow that the problem that we're seeing in inner-city unemployment, for example, is attributable to immigrants, I think, is a case of scapegoating that I do not believe in." Then, maybe three minutes later: "I also believe we have to give a pathway to citizenship after they have paid a fine and learned English, to those who are already here, because if we don't, they will continue to undermine U.S. wages." Double talk much, Senator?
Obama also favors punishing employers who hire illegal imiigrants, but not because that's against US law or anything, but "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation, hiring folks who cannot complain about worker conditions, who aren't getting the minimum wage sometimes, or aren't getting overtime." It's nice to know Obama cares more for the illegal immigrants than those losing jobs because of them.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, is much more direct about her desire for blanket amnesty: "We will give you a path to legalization if you meet the following condition: pay a fine because you entered illegally, be willing to pay back taxes over time, try to learn English -- and we have to help you do that, because we've cut back on so many of those services." In other words, "We'll give you citizenship, and we'll do everything for you."

During an otherwise dull segment that had nothing to do with issues, Clinton was asks what people would think of another Clinton in the White House, to which she responded with this whopper: "We start from the same place. Nobody has an advantage no matter who you are or where you came from." Sure, Senator. That's why everyone I know is running for President.

On Iraq:
Senator Clinton justifying withdrawing American troop from Iraq: "Yes, we are withdrawing...it's important to send that message to the region, because I think that Iran, Syria, the other countries in the neighborhood, are going to find themselves in a very difficult position as we withdraw. You know, be careful what you wish for.They will be dragged into what is sectarian divisiveness with many different factions among the three main groups." So by running away, we're going to make it the rest of the region's problem? No, Senator. By running away we're going to tell Iran, Syria, and a host of other unsavory characters, "Do with Iraq as you will. It's not our problem anymore."
Senator Clinton also pointed out that she "had to fight to get body armor" for American troops. Maybe she can take that gripe to her buddies like John Kerry, who "voted for the $87 billion (to fund our troops) before voting against it." Even four years later, that still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The debate was actually quite civil when the candidates were going after each other. Their major differences came on the minutiae of their policies, which really don;t differ much. One more interesting note: One of the TV sponsors of the debate was an organization that espouses the benefits of using coal, which everyone knows liberals absolutely love.