Consolation Prize

Most commentators called last night’s Ohio debate in favor of Clinton or, at best, ruled it a draw. Perhaps I had tuned into the wrong channel?!? Having watched it in its entirety, I can’t conceive of anyone handing the blue ribbon to Hillary. And she certainly wouldn’t win “most congenial”. Not “most improved” either (as coveted as the title may be)—she was perhaps at her worst of the recent debates I’ve seen. The only way I can reconcile the post-debate analyses is that everyone was feeling sorry after MSNBC aired several clips on the campaign trail after Texas where she shrilled some incoherent blather about Obama using unfair tactics. I was embarrassed for her. There is only one way to describe her in these clips, but I will refrain from gender based name-calling. (Wait. No I won’t. She sounded like a HUGE bitch and that’s the most PC description I can muster.)

On top of this she began her opening statement by accusing the moderators of always asking her the first question. Honey, the victim card has not played well in the past. Suck it up, sport. Presidents don’t get to whine about tough questions. Refuse to answer them, maybe. Bitch and moan, nope.

From there the debate quickly eroded into what minutia of my health care plan which will never get implemented in its original form is different than my opponents. Granted I think mandates illuminate a critical difference between the candidates’ philosophies, democrats ultimately aren’t buying what they see in the showroom.

Then it was on to NAFTA bashing and who hates free trade more. It went something like this (my translation):

BO: NAFTA came from your co-Clinton administration and you said during your NY senate campaign you DID appreciate the benefits of trade. What gives?

HC: No, I have always been ignorant to economic policy. I am willing to pander to any crowd, but I have been a consistent xenophobe and protectionist.

BO: Well, I have a clear record of hating developing countries, punishing consumers and propping up uncompetitive industries while I was not actually in a decision-making capacity. So, there should be no dispute that I am the more economically ignorant, anti-growth candidate.

I find this recent emphasis on trade fascinating. There is no possible way the candidates are actually getting these talking points from their economic or policy advisors. This is either pure idiocy or blatant pandering. Do they have that little respect for the electorate? Are you telling me that you can’t sell a free-trade message that includes transition assistance to ease adjustment from competition? Democrats should love that; it includes more bureacracy and government dependency.

I leave you with Free Exchange's lucid post on this tidbit of utter campaign ridiculousness:

An honest discussion of trade should discuss trade-offs, but that did not happen last night. Ohio job loss is a serious matter to many households, but it begins to look much more manageable when set against the global gains from trade. Journalists and economists should force the candidates to be explicit about the costs of their trade proposals. If Mr Obama and Ms Clinton wish to roll back trade, or take a "time out," they should have to acknowledge the higher consumer prices, slower growth in American export economies, and continued poverty in developing nations that would result.