Reviews of the First Democratic Debate

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/opinion/letters/democrats-debate.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Democrats Split on How Far Left to Nudge Nation” (front page, June 27):

As I watch these current and future debates, for me there’s no longer room for any more self-indulgence in the luxury of who is “closest to me on the issues,” as so many of us allowed ourselves in 2016 in the debates between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. None of it will be worth a hill of beans if President Trump wins again.

I find I’m becoming a one-issue voter. As I assess the candidates, I have one criterion and one only: Who is likable and tough enough to withstand and prevail against Mr. Trump? I don’t care if it’s someone more “centrist” or “progressive.” Unless the nominee can win, the rest is “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

James AdlerCambridge, Mass.

To the Editor:

All of the candidates at the first Democratic debate made really good points. From what I heard, they all seemed to have a good moral compass. The weird debate format seemed to display a good lineup of candidates for president. Unfortunately, the candidates often got cut off after just 30 or 60 seconds.

Maybe with 20-plus candidates it is time for the Democratic National Committee to think outside the box and come up with new way to introduce the large population of candidates.

Richard DickinsonGlendale, Calif.

To the Editor:

It was a lively, polite, informed debate. Cory Booker and Julián Castro had their surprising breakout moments. Tulsi Gabbard mentioned her time serving in the military a little too often. But my biggest gauge was how would the candidates handle themselves against the bully Donald Trump when it comes down to the wire.

We all remember well how he stalked Hillary Clinton around the stage and interrupted. The Democratic candidate will not be facing a polite, intelligent debater.

Denise PascalSanta Fe, N.M.

To the Editor:

Re “Elizabeth Warren Aced the First Democratic Debate,” by Frank Bruni (column, nytimes.com, June 27):

Here we go again. “She has sharp edges.” Mr. Bruni, where in that debate did you see sharp edges? You note she used the word “fight” a lot. Are women not supposed to say that word? I saw a smiling, passionate, educated, prepared, experienced, articulate person who didn’t yell, interrupt (unlike most of the men) or do anything else amounting to sharp edges.

Second, she went quiet in the second hour because she was never called on and because she didn’t interrupt others. She respectfully watched and listened to their answers. She has my vote.

Carla BarnwellBoone, Iowa

To the Editor:

At Wednesday’s debate, several Democrats agreed that the climate crisis was the greatest threat to humanity. At an hour and a half in, moderators finally dedicated a mere seven minutes to the issue. Sure, it’s more than any debate in 2016, but that’s a low bar. If I can count on my hands the number of minutes that the climate crisis was discussed, then we’ve got a problem.

As one of those young voters who turned out in record numbers to help Democrats take back the House in 2018, I’m utterly disappointed. I grew up in the Midwest, parts of which have gone under water this year. I went to college in California, where I got a respiratory infection from wildfire smoke. A handful of 30-second sound bites was too inadequate for me to get a sense of how seriously all these would-be leaders plan to save my future from what is clearly an emergency.

The biggest takeaway: The Democratic National Committee must host a climate debate.

Michael WolfeOverland Park, Kan.

To the Editor:

I was astonished that two candidates chose to deliver part of their response to questions in Spanish. While I understand that they wanted to appear inclusive to a certain group of people, many people speak a variety of other languages or don’t understand Spanish and possibly could have been offended.

Lois WeningNew York

To the Editor:

One can only applaud the stamina of anyone who watched Wednesday night’s first Democratic debate for more than a few minutes, as the participants continually resorted to their prepared responses and rarely answered the questions. Two rules would do wonders: 1) all questions must be framed as “yes or no” questions; 2) the participants must say “yes” or “no” before going on further to answer any question.

Eugene D. CohenPhoenix