Because of the events of the past couple weeks, the final Democratic presidential debate (in Los Angeles, California) carried with it the same kind of anticipation you’d experience when two renowned boxers are about to get in the ring. There’s been a whole lot of talking going on to promote the ‘match,’ and alas, it was finally time to start throwing some punches.

Unfortunately for the pay-per-view audience, this ‘fight’ was anything but exciting, as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spent the better part of two hours playing nice towards each other in a hand-holding ‘we shall overcome’-type moment. Someone in the Democratic Party must’ve taken them aside and lectured them on the negative effects of their recent campaign rhetoric – and the result was a very dull affair indeed.

 
Maybe it was because doe-eyed populist country boy John Edwards was no longer there to ramp up the verbal intensity with his endless calls to ‘fight’ for the underclass – but there wasn’t very much ‘fight’ at all in Clinton and Obama without him there. In fact, they both went out of their way to ‘thank’ Edwards in their opening monologues in a not-so-veiled attempt to pander to his few supporters.

 
Not even the many Hollywood celebrities in attendance could’ve livened up this ‘show.’ Talk about a sleeper.

 
For a conservative listening to this Clinton and Obama ‘debate,’ it was kind of like taking a long plane flight – it was noisy, uncomfortable and a little bit scary -- and you couldn’t wait for it to be over. The only difference was there wasn’t something fun waiting on the other end of the time expenditure.

 
The forum was moderated by gentlemanly Wolf Blitzer, quite a contrast to the previous evening when the Republicans were forced to deal with a much younger and more politically motivated Anderson Cooper. Cooper’s agenda was to pit John McCain against Mitt Romney and get them to disagree – and it worked. But there wasn’t anything that Blitzer could do to stir up the Democratic stew, as both Clinton and Obama side-stepped several pointed questions that could’ve really got things going.

 
Towards the end of the debate the discussion turned to Iraq, and Hillary found herself trying to rationalize her vote to authorize the war, appearing very weak when she explained that her vote was to let Saddam know that we would go to war ‘if it was a last resort,’ but it was really the impetuousness of George W. Bush that led to war.

 
In effect, she’s saying that she was counting on Bush not to make good on all his promises to invade Iraq if Saddam didn’t comply with the UN resolutions.

 
Blitzer followed with “Are you saying you were naïve in trusting Bush?” which brought boos from the audience – how dare anyone ask Queen Hillary a difficult question!

 
But she wouldn’t take the bait – someone must’ve already been tossing out these types of questions in debate preparation to draw her temper prematurely, so she’d have no energy left during the actual event. There was no screeching, shrill voice, no if-looks-could-kill stares, and no flashes of a boiling temper. Hillary merely bit her tongue and answered, “Nice try, Wolf.”

 
Hillary’s calm, whether real or the result of a focus group, ‘won’ her the debate, though I didn’t see a big difference between the two in temperament, ideas or ‘presence.’

 
Uniting the country?

 
There’s one thing that’s been somewhat curious throughout the campaign season, as the Democrats have see-sawed in their levels of animosity towards each other – they’ve all said that regardless of the differences amongst themselves, that in the end, they can bring the country together (it sounds a lot like George W. Bush in 2000). 

 
Hillary has maintained repeatedly that she’s the one to ‘unite the country,’ yet she speaks nothing but contempt for the Republicans and conservative ideals.

 
Seeing as her negative ratings are consistently in the high forties, and her campaign rhetoric hasn’t exactly been sweet towards the opposing point-of-view, how does she hope to ‘unite’ anyone, except to bring together people opposing her?

 
The Clintons have always packed with them a heavy load of self-righteousness – her presidency would make the Bush Administration’s tenure look like an era of partisan cooperation. With all the things she and Bill have been saying about Republicans for the past sixteen years, would you expect any different?

 
Hillary said, when asked a question about having either a Clinton or a Bush on the ballot for the past 28 years – “It took a Clinton to clean up the mess from the first Bush presidency, and it’ll take a Clinton to clean up the mess from the second.” Even the conservatives who feel betrayed by George W. Bush and his legacy would probably have something to say about that.

 
It’s going to make for a very interesting general campaign if she’s still around.

 
Issue differences, or lack thereof

 
This debate was probably one of the more issue-oriented events, as both candidates took extended periods of time to discuss their socialistic health care plans, the Democratic reputation to ‘tax and spend,’ the Bush tax cuts, illegal immigration, qualifications to be president, endorsements, Iraq (which included a sub-discussion on ‘judgment,’ and the decision to invade in the first place), spouses (a question about Bill’s big mouth) and finally, a ‘dream’ ticket containing the two of them.

 
Though there was a good discussion on these many topics, it was clear that with Hillary or Obama, you’re basically getting the same positions on just about everything.

 
From the very first question, it was striking to notice just how similar these Democratic candidates are in their approaches to government’s role in American society. Blitzer asked them to articulate the differences in their positions, and both of them had a difficult time expressing how they really departed, other than the distinctions they’ve been making on the campaign trail in the past month – the fact that Hillary’s a white woman and Obama’s a black man.

 
To his credit, Obama has never made race an issue – Bill Clinton was the one who brought that specter into the contest. But both Democrats’ policies are practically the same, with very, very subtle differences.

 
That’s a contrast to the Republicans, where there appears to be quite an ideological fissure between the leading candidates – especially John McCain and… everyone else. 

 
Not so for the Democrats. Both believe in pulling out of Iraq, even if they differ on the timetable and circumstances for doing it. Both believe in the ‘concept’ of universal, government controlled health coverage. Both favor government enforcement of fair ‘outcomes,’ largely through structuring the tax code to punish the successful (or those who make a lot of money).

 
One fundamental flaw in the liberal philosophy – they all rant and rave about how the rich are getting richer with any kind of tax cuts, but what exactly do the ‘rich’ do with their money?

 
Democrats would have you believe that the ‘rich’ just squander their ill-gotten gains on diamonds and ponies, but don’t the wealthy have to put their money somewhere, in order to, gasp, make more money? Or are the rich merely tucking wads of cash and coin into gold-plated shoeboxes and digging many, many holes in their oversized backyards to keep the treasure away from the poor? 

 
Here’s reality – there are only so many things you can do with wealth. You can save money, spend money, or invest it. All are good options in the free market economy, and all three choices help those in the lower economic rungs. But the Democrats insist on driving an ideological wedge between the classes, which is very unhealthy for American unity, and isn’t even based in truth.

 
The Democrats represent a very twisted notion of federal power, which certainly bears no resemblance to anything in the constitution (limited and delineated powers?). Hillary and Obama would only be too happy to confiscate any resources, divide them up and distribute them to some Democratic voting block.

 
So in the end, Democratic voters are essentially making their choices based on personality – no wonder they’re choosing Obama in increasing numbers. He’s a much ‘nicer’ human being.

 
Principles – do they have any?

 
Another contrast between the parties seems to be one of ‘principles,’ but it’s not in the sense that the principles that they believe in have to be agreed upon, or the same. The Clinton wing of the Democrats doesn’t appear to be guided by any principles whatsoever. If anything, it’s a populist set of assumptions that the more government can intervene to drive wedges between the haves and have-nots (or will-nots), the better off they are politically.

 
Hillary Clinton seems a lot more interested in scoring political points vis-à-vis the Republicans than she is in advancing any particular set of ideals or principles.

 
Obama is some better in this regard – he genuinely seems to believe in something. The ‘something’ is where the problem lies, and could potentially be much more damaging in the long run, because if there is such a thing, Obama is a ‘principled’ liberal.

 
Hillary just wants to be president – and in that respect, she’s a perfect match for Bill.

 
Is McCain a secret Democratic plant?

 
John McCain agrees with the Democrats on so many issues, it was hard for Hillary and Obama to attack him outright on anything except McCain’s views on the Iraq War.

 
During one particularly interesting exchange on illegal immigration policy, Obama said “I even worked with John McCain on the issue, though I doubt he’d admit it now.” This was in the same breath that Obama recited the names of several other Democrats that he’d worked with on the various amnesty/immigration proposals – namely Teddy Kennedy and Obama’s fellow Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin.

 
McCain’s cozy relationship with the Democrats underscores much of what Mitt Romney and other conservatives have been saying about McCain all along – that he doesn’t have any principles other than trying to be ‘loved’ by the other side and the media.

 
If McCain doesn’t offer any distinction from the Democrats, why are the pundits saying he’d be the best candidate to face them in the general election?

 
Because the Democrats are hungering to go up against a candidate who champions an unpopular war and makes stupid statements such as the possibility of being in Iraq for ‘a hundred years.’ If I were in their position, I’d be rooting for McCain like crazy.

 
Is it Obama/Hillary, or Hillary/Obama?

 
The final segment of the evening was very brief, with Blitzer posing only a couple questions. The final one concerned the possibility of a ‘dream’ Democratic ticket that would contain the two of them. Obama answered first.

 
“Obviously there’s a big difference between the two,” he said, clearly favoring his name at the top of the ticket. He then said it was premature and presumptuous to begin talking about potential nominees – which was a clever way to side-step the question, but also was probably correct. Obama then rambled on further, trying desperately to say ‘anyone but her’ in the nicest way possible, finally concluding with: “The members of my cabinet have to know that they’re working for the American people.”

 
Hillary said she agreed with everything Obama said, claimed there would be a unified Democratic Party (as long as she’s at the top of it), and concluded with a plug for her town hall meeting to be televised on Monday night.

 
Combining the two of them onto one ticket would only prolong the agony that conservatives feel in this upcoming election – the prospect of facing a two-headed socialistic dragon, or John McCain, who’s only got one head but offers much of the same as Clinton/Obama.

 
It’s not a good time for conservatives.

 
Democrats united?

 
With the Democrats tucking their animosity under their coats and preparing to battle the badly fractured Republican Party, it brought to mind the old Chinese proverb: ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.’

 
Clearly, Clinton had Obama have reconciled that the Republicans are the enemy to be dealt with, and even an ‘enemy’ within the party is a potential friend when considering the common foe.

 
It’s clear that whoever ends up winning for the Democrats, there’s going to be an uphill battle to defeat them in November.