First Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2
Winners and Losers
I thought the first Democratic debate—the first of two—was excellent and inspiring. Here are my thoughts on the winners and losers:
There were no outright gaffs by anyone—the closest was Ryan saying the Taliban were responsible for 9/11 (the Taliban did support Al Quaeda)—so I'll share what I thought were the strongest moments. If I don't mention someone, that means in my opinion she or he did not do very well. The following is in descending order of what I thought were the best performances:
I thought DeBlasio made the greatest number of excellent points, beginning with his opening statement on the soul of the Democratic Party. He followed with a powerful denunciation of the greed of health insurance companies, and the need to replace them with Medicare for all. He later made the astute point that Americans have lost their jobs not due to immigrants but the actions of big corporations. He was also eloquent on the need to do more about police victimization of minorities, and on the need for Congressional approval of US military actions. And I liked his answer on the biggest threat to the US: Russia and its interference with our elections. (Given the number of times that the 2-hour MSNBC broadcast was interrupted by blank screens, I wonder if the Russians weren't hacking some of MSNBC's computers.) All in all, I thought DeBlasio established himself last night as a passionate and articulate candidate. Given his low standing in the polls, his performance was the biggest surprise. As someone who works in NYC, and lives close by, I'm happy to see this.
Booker was excellent, too. He was right on about health-care insurers profiteering, and on ICE and their Nazi tactics (my word not his). I also liked his vision of the Democrats not only winning the Presidency but both Houses of Congress in the next election. And it was good to hear him talk about the need to protect LGBQT communities.
Warren started out great on the need for healthcare for all, and for Roe vs. Wade to be enacted by Congress into Federal law. But she wasn't strong enough on gun control, and was silent or didn't say enough on some major issues, including immigration. Given that she is pretty high up in the polls, her performance was not as good as expected.
Klobuchar, on the other hand, was better than expected. I liked her brief for a sane foreign policy, and she was excellent on kids leading the charge for better gun control. I think she came out a lot better than she went in on this debate.
Castro was likable and very effective on ending the criminalization of illegal immigrants (those violations should be civil offenses). And he was 100% right when he said the tragic drownings of a father and daughter in the Rio Grande today should not only break our hearts but "piss us all off." I think his performance last night made him much more of a contender.
And... that's it. No one else made much of an impression, including Beto O'Rourke, whose weak performance last night might be the effective end of his campaign.
See you here tonight after Part 2.
About the Creator
Paul Levinson
Novels The Silk Code, The Plot To Save Socrates, It's Real Life: An Alternate History of The Beatles; LPs Twice Upon A Rhyme & Welcome Up; nonfiction The Soft Edge & Digital McLuhan, translated into 15 languages. Prof, Fordham Univ.
Keep reading
More stories from Paul Levinson and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Review of 'Breslin and Hamill: Deadline Artists'
Breslin and Hamill: Deadline Artists, the new documentary on HBO, is lots of things. A paean to an age of journalism (Breslin would say "reporting," as this movie tells us) which is either gone or transmuted into another form, depending upon whom you listen to. A story of New York City, which, also, is either dead or transformed. But definitely a story of two uniquely gifted writers who indeed worked on a deadline, the deadline of timely reporting (i.e., at most, last hour's or yesterday's news, not last week's).
By Paul Levinson7 years ago in The Swamp
Time to Dump Trump? Europeans Whisper Last-Resort Options to Save Greenland
In diplomatic circles across Europe, a phrase once unthinkable is now being whispered behind closed doors: What if the alliance can’t hold? As renewed pressure from former U.S. President Donald Trump resurfaces over Greenland, European officials are reportedly discussing last-resort options to safeguard the strategically vital Arctic territory — even if it means distancing themselves from Washington. While public statements remain carefully measured, private conversations suggest a growing anxiety: Greenland has become a geopolitical fault line, testing NATO solidarity, transatlantic trust, and Europe’s ability to defend its own interests. Why Greenland Is Suddenly at the Center of Global Power Politics Greenland is not just the world’s largest island. It is a strategic prize. Located between North America and Europe, Greenland sits at the crossroads of Arctic shipping lanes, missile defense routes, and untapped reserves of rare earth minerals. As climate change melts Arctic ice, access to these routes and resources is expanding — turning the region into a global competition zone. The United States already maintains a military presence in Greenland through Thule Air Base, vital to missile warning and space surveillance. But Trump’s earlier proposal to buy Greenland outright shocked European capitals and Denmark alike, reframing the island not as a partner but as a commodity. Now, with Trump once again influencing U.S. foreign policy discourse, European leaders fear that economic pressure, security leverage, or political coercion could return. Denmark’s Dilemma and Europe’s Unease Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Copenhagen has repeatedly stated that it is not for sale. Yet Denmark alone lacks the political and military weight to counter sustained pressure from Washington. That’s where Europe enters the picture. Behind the scenes, diplomats from Germany, France, and Nordic countries are reportedly discussing how to shield Denmark and Greenland from unilateral U.S. moves. These discussions are not about confrontation — at least not yet — but about contingency planning. The uncomfortable truth is this: Europe has long relied on the U.S. for Arctic security, and challenging Washington risks exposing Europe’s own strategic weaknesses. What Are the “Last-Resort Options”? European officials are careful not to spell out these ideas publicly, but analysts point to several possibilities under quiet consideration. 1. Deepening EU Involvement in Greenland One option is stronger European Union engagement with Greenland — economically, politically, and diplomatically. This could include increased investment in infrastructure, climate research, and sustainable mining projects to reduce Greenland’s reliance on external powers. By anchoring Greenland more firmly within Europe’s economic orbit, the EU could make any U.S. attempt at leverage far more complicated. 2. Expanded European Security Presence Another option involves enhancing European defense cooperation in the Arctic, potentially through joint patrols, surveillance missions, or NATO-aligned European initiatives that do not rely solely on U.S. leadership. This would be a delicate move, as NATO cohesion depends heavily on U.S. participation. Still, some European officials believe greater autonomy is overdue. 3. Legal and Diplomatic Shields Europe could also pursue stronger legal frameworks affirming Greenland’s right to self-determination and Denmark’s sovereignty. While largely symbolic, such measures would raise the diplomatic cost of any aggressive maneuver. In extreme scenarios, coordinated diplomatic resistance — even sanctions or formal rebukes — could be considered, though most officials view this as a true last resort. Why Trump Changes the Equation European leaders are accustomed to managing disagreements with Washington. What makes Trump different is unpredictability. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly questioned NATO commitments, framed alliances as transactional, and blurred the line between negotiation and coercion. His interest in Greenland was not just strategic — it was personal, public, and disruptive. The fear in Europe is not necessarily that Trump would “take” Greenland, but that he might use U.S. security guarantees as leverage, forcing concessions through pressure rather than partnership. For European capitals already dealing with Ukraine, energy insecurity, and domestic political shifts, another transatlantic crisis is the last thing they want. Greenland’s Own Voice Amid the power politics, Greenlanders themselves are increasingly vocal. Many in Greenland support greater autonomy or eventual independence — but not annexation. Local leaders have emphasized that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people, not foreign governments. European officials privately acknowledge that ignoring Greenlandic voices would undermine their moral position. Any European strategy, they argue, must prioritize economic development, environmental protection, and self-governance, not just strategic defense. A Test for Transatlantic Relations At its core, the Greenland issue is about more than territory. It raises uncomfortable questions: Can Europe protect its interests without U.S. backing? Is NATO flexible enough to survive internal disagreements? What happens when allies no longer trust each other’s intentions? For now, European leaders are trying to avoid open confrontation, hoping that diplomacy and quiet deterrence will keep tensions from escalating. But the whispers themselves are revealing. They suggest that Europe is, for the first time in decades, seriously contemplating a future where American leadership is not guaranteed. Why This Moment Matters The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth — physically and politically. What happens in Greenland could set a precedent for how global powers compete in newly accessible regions. If Europe fails to act, it risks appearing passive and divided. If it acts too forcefully, it risks fracturing the transatlantic alliance that has underpinned its security since World War II. It is a narrow path — and one that demands strategic clarity Europe has often postponed. Final Thoughts “Time to dump Trump?” may sound dramatic, but it captures a deeper unease spreading across European capitals. Greenland has become a symbol of a shifting world — one where alliances are tested, assumptions are challenged, and old guarantees no longer feel automatic. Europe is not eager for a break with Washington. But the quiet conversations suggest a realization that preparation is not betrayal. Whether these whispered last-resort options remain theoretical — or become policy — will depend on how the next phase of U.S. politics unfolds. For Greenland, Europe, and the Arctic, the stakes could not be higher.
By Muhammad Hassanabout 22 hours ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.