A YBP Facebook Debate: Barack vs. Hillary pt. 3

Parts 1 and 2.

I didn’t watch the debate live, but I did catch the videos on CNN. Here is the last half of my debate with Tahani (via IM) regarding Barack and Hillary. Be sure to leave your comments and join the discussion!

(Before yesterday’s debate)

Tahani: I’m not saying Hillary is more right than Barack. All I’m sayin’ is she sounds more intelligent and like she’s planned for this more. Barack just sounds cool. Fun. Likeable. He looks like my dad, and that’s not good enough to be elected president.

Fredric: I disagree. I think Hillary is well-versed at defending herself and Barack is better at articulating his vision. He doesn’t like answering petty questions b/c he doesn’t believe it helps anything. It’s dumb b/c the questions are loaded. If you ask a question about a vote and that bill was loaded with like 10 other things that you disagreed with, it’s pointless to explain that in a debate b/c that is the nature of politics. If they package a ‘get slum lords off the streets’ action with 10 policies to increase taxes, I mean, the question will be ‘well, why didnt you vote for that?’ Then you spend your time trying to get into details about tax law, the effect, etc. He can’t articulate what he really is talking about

I’ve seen him specifically state his visions, whether it be with technology, healthcare, and war.

Tahani: What you’re not getting is he doesn’t answer important questions, like how will you fund reforms, how will you ensure that your plans are feasible. Those votes are important. What about the big issues like poverty, social security, etc. Barack doesn’t have a definite answer. If you look up any debate, he always falls back on that “I didn’t vote for the war” or “I have big plans for the future.”

Fredric: I think importance is relative … which is the point. He talked about poverty at Tavis’ debate. He talked about the causes and the policies that are needed to de-institutionalize a lot of the processes. He hasn’t harped on it as much as Edwards, which, in the blog, I’ve cited.

Tahani: You thought that was in-depth and concrete? Did you know that he wasn’t even going to come on Tavis? Tavis had to wait for months to even get a response from Barack. That was crazy. Tavis is nationally respected by all. Then, he got there and played himself YET AGAIN with some fluffy answers.

Fredric: Does it matter? He was there. His response time is nothing compared to those who didn’t show at all. I thought he did well. You can’t be Al Sharpton and want to protest everything and expect change.

Tahani: He did well with some easy ‘I could have said that’ answers. Its’ not about being a bama (lol) and protesting. Why not sound educated and planned, have 10 steps, then the whiteboys can’t call u a happy coon. They can’t say anything because your game is SO TIGHT. He should worry about why he hasn’t thought about things in enough details that he can cite his plans when asked upon to do so.

Fredric: Well, one, you shouldn’t worry about what people are going to call you. They are going to do that anyways. Two, specific plans require participation and effort. Leadership is never about telling parties what they need to do. You set a vision and tell the parties ‘this is what we are striving for’ it doesn’t matter.

Did you read the proposal? He proposed an outline, but a step by step to satisfy the nitpickers is irrelevant b/c you still have to bring in the players to execute and that is why you set a vision with an outline.  People won’t work if they feel they are being told what to do. That is what deadlocks the parties now in the senate. Cats are so ‘well, we need x, y, z’, so you get these bills that help poor families and build bridges in Alaska. Everyone is so concerned with getting their pieces in and that is what George Bush likes to veto on. He just wants to see ‘a, b, c’ in the bills. Anything more….veto. Barack has said repeatedly this ‘old politics’ of getting things done is just a waste of time and money. A president should be the visionary….set deadlines, set hope, set expectations, and let the players execute, which is why hillary would be bad b/c she is SO good at the games. She wouldn’t be open to anything else.

(pic from chicagotribune.com)