night 2 second dem debate 2020

The second round of Democratic presidential primary debates this week offered several opportunities to reflect on candidates’ histories — unfortunately, the candidates themselves did not do so.

When Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said she was “deeply concerned” about Sen. Kamala Harris’ record as attorney general of California — specifically in regard to marijuana convictions and the death penalty — Harris’ response was vague. At the end of her first response, she did say she now supports marijuana legalization, and she expressed opposition to the death penalty during her second time to speak, but her response was more ‘big picture’ when Gabbard made specific claims.

After the debate, when being interviewed by CNN, Harris had an opportunity to address the more specific claims without the time constraints she faced on stage. Unfortunately, rather than elaborating on her own history, she pivoted to attack Gabbard’s polling numbers, as well as her record on Syria. 

The roles were reversed in the first Democratic debate in June, when Harris pressed former Vice President Joe Biden on his history of opposing busing and comments about working with white supremacist legislators.

Biden responded dismissively at the time but later — after significant backlash — apologized for his comments about working with segregationists, while once again using his role in the Obama administration as a defense of his personal record.

This editorial is not meant to serve as a commendation or condemnation of any specific candidate’s record. 

Rather, its intention is to examine the rhetoric used in discussing those histories.

When candidates seek political points at the expense of honest examinations of their pasts, the electorate suffers. Quick-fix rhetoric is a public disservice. 

In addition, it robs candidates of the opportunity to explain their pasts — to give voters an honest look into what choices they made and why. 

Harris, in her CNN response, could have elaborated on her personal stance against the death penalty in contrast to her defense of capital punishment in California. Such a response would have educated voters and given Harris a second chance at answer Gabbard. The response she gave may have effectively rebuffed Gabbard in her supporters’ minds, but it almost certainly didn’t help anyone who shared in Gabbard’s concern about Harris’ record. 

This problem is obviously not unique to the 2020 election, and cries for honesty are far from new. However, Democratic candidates face a historically expansive field and need to seek new ways to differentiate themselves from the crowd.

Opinion Policies

Opinions expressed in columns and letters are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Daily or organizations with which the author(s) are associated. 

Feedback policy: The Daily encourages discussion but does not guarantee its publication. We reserve the right to edit or reject any letter or online feedback. The goal of the opinion section is to spark civil public discourse by publishing opinions based on facts that articulate an argument. The merit of a piece's ability to further public discourse, among other factors, will be considered when determining if a piece is publication worthy. 

Letter to the Editor Submission Link

(3) comments

petter son

Hello! Thanks for sharing! The post itself brings its contribution to events where it's invited to participate. I'm impressed by the written post!

Steve Gregg

The issue that begs honesty most from the Democratic candidates is the cost for their lunatic schemes. The answer you will never hear from these big spenders is that it will cost $100 trillion with a T to pay for all their wild promises. To put this in perspective, the budget for the US federal government is $4 trillion and is $22 trillion in debt. The GDP of the USA, which is the total wealth created by the US in a year, is $19 trillion. The GDP of the entire world is $81 trillion. So, the lunatic Democrats want America to spend five years worth of every penny earned by Americans on their grandiose and unworkable promises. If you think that can be funded by taxing only the rich more, then you are drinking the lefty Kool Aid, the special Jonestown flavor with cyanide.

Steve Gregg

The only sane Democratic candidate, businessman John Delaney, pointed out that hospital administrators told him that they would have to shut down their hospitals if they relied on nothing but Medicare payments, which don't cover their costs. That shows Medicare For All to be unworkable pie in the sky. Elizabeth Warren castigated Delaney for telling Democrats what they can't do, demonstrating the madness of the Democrats: DON'T TELL US NOT TO BANKRUPT EVERY HOSPITAL IN THE NATION! HOSPITALS SHOULD BE FREE!

The Democrats notion of free health care will be the most expensive health care you ever bought. Same goes for all their other nutty schemes. They should not be platforms for presidential candidates. They should be relegated to Wile E. Coyote to employ in Looney Tunes cartoons where their inevitable catastrophic conclusions will not hurt real people.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.