September 27, 2007

I watch debates — so you don’t have to

The conventional wisdom, which in this case isn’t entirely wrong, tells us that the Democratic candidates not named Hillary Clinton have to start taking some pointed risks in order to shake up the race. That means, among other things, taking Clinton on directly at debates.

The approach is not without risk. Dem voters frequently sour on candidates who are too aggressive in taking on the frontrunner (see Gephardt, Dick, circa 2003). But doing nothing is nearly as dangerous — Clinton’s winning this race and if her rivals don’t try to slow her down, they won’t catch her.

What we saw last night was a field of non-Clinton candidates trying to thread the needle. Overall, I think they did a fairly good job at it.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself on the defensive here Wednesday night in a debate in which the Democratic presidential candidates clashed over withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, the financial future of Social Security and Iran’s nuclear threat.

The two-hour debate features clear differences but few fireworks. Clinton (N.Y.), the front-runner for the nomination, drew steady criticism, but her seven rivals couched their disagreements with respect rather than scorn or sharp words. […]

After turning in a series of winning performances in previous debates, Clinton appeared less dominant on Wednesday. Her potential vulnerabilities were highlighted either through questions from moderator Tim Russert of NBC News or from responses from her opponents.

That sounds about right. For example, Clinton was the only person on the stage to support the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran yesterday. In discussing the policy, John Edwards said, “I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war. We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.”

Similarly, on health care, Barack Obama said, “I think Hillary Clinton deserves credit for having worked on health care. I think John deserves credit for his proposal…. The issue is not going to be who has these particular plans. It has to do with who can inspire and mobilize the American people to get it done and open up the process. If it was lonely for Hillary [in 1993], part of the reason it was lonely, Hillary, was because you closed the door to a lot of potential allies in that process. At that time, 80 percent of Americans already wanted universal health care, but they didn’t feel like they were let into the process.”

Hardly a gloves-come-off brawl, but clear hints that Clinton will have to endure some increasingly-tough barbs as the process moves forward.

Other observations from my notepad:

* Clinton seemed surprisingly hawkish last night. She talked about a military presence in Iraq beyond 2009, and she took a fairly hard line against Iran. It runs the risk of pushing away some Dem activists.

* This was probably Obama’s worst debate performance to date; he seemed flat the whole night. Apparently, he was battling a nasty cold/flu that he picked up overnight. That explains the lackluster presence, but I wonder why he didn’t mention it during the event? He could have made some expectations-lower joke about feeling ill, but believing in “playing while hurt.” He might have even gained some sympathy. Instead, everyone wondered why he seemed largely invisible for two hours.

* Bill Richardson mentioned his support for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, twice. Worse, he emphasize his support for the bizarre policy while saying he could strengthen Social Security with no pain whatsoever, which made no sense. Unimpressive.

* Edwards was very sharp, needling Clinton frequently, without being overly aggressive. I think he probably helped himself the most last night, except he stumbled slightly when Russert reminded him that in 2004 he said the nation couldn’t afford universal health care, described it as “not achievable,” and “not responsible.” Edwards said he’s changed, “and so has America.” It was a subtle reminder that 2008 Edwards is frequently at odds with 2004 Edwards.

* Russert asked the “legacy” question: “Senator Clinton, if you are the nominee, it will be 28 years, from 1980 to 2008, where there’s been a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket. Is it healthy for democracy to have a two-family political dynasty?” Clinton responded, “I thought Bill was a pretty good president.” The answer drew cheers and applause, reminding us once again that Clinton is very good at not answering questions.

* More so than at other recent debates, I thought last night’s questions were particularly bad. Candidates were quizzed on lowering the national drinking age to 18, a federal ban on public smoking, their favorite Bible verse, and Red Sox vs. Yankees. Meanwhile, there was no mention of Darfur, global warming, S-CHIP, and a variety of other deserving issues.

All in all, no game-changing moments. What’d you think?

 
Discussion

What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.

21 Comments
1.
On September 27th, 2007 at 8:43 am, JKap said:

I thought Kucinich won the debate. And he’s the only candidate to have voted against the Patriot Act, AUMF in Iraq, and the Military Commissions Act. He has stood up to the brutal dictator in the person of George Bush and shown the courage to defend the American Way of Life in the face of terrorism. That’s the kind of leadership this country desperately needs now.

2.
On September 27th, 2007 at 8:44 am, williamjacobs said:

No notes for Dodd, Biden, or Kucinich?

Have you gone MSM on us, CB?

I guess I can count my blessings that you also didn’t take a pointless, unsupported swipe at single-digit Gravel.

Dang shame about Richardson getting kidnapped and being replaced by this alien pod being that looks like him. WTF, Bill?

As for Edwards’ 2004 health care comment. He was wrong and he should say so.
If the health plan calls for all teh band-aids and neo-sporin we want, it’s affordable. Easily.

It’s just how comprehensive the plan is that will deem whether we can afford it and whether it’s worthwhile.

Same argument with Social Security. Make teh eligibility age 150 and suddenly the fund is solvent until the year 3120. All these things can get done easily, it’s just whether there’s enough effort, brains, and political will to pull it off. Stop telling me any one program is impossible.

3.
On September 27th, 2007 at 8:53 am, TR said:

Edwards was solid, and this could be the moment where he takes over for Obama as the un-Hillary.

But Kucinich was surprisingly strong as well, and even Gravel made some nice points. When he insisted Congress should vote on the war each and every day until it gets pounded home to the public, that was dead-on.

I liked when Russert — who looked like a sweaty drunk who’d been roused from a barstool at closing time — kept asking hypothetical questions about Iran-Israel and then got testy when people called it a hypothetical. What an idiot.

4.
On September 27th, 2007 at 9:16 am, Martin said:

I didn’t watch, as I was at work.
What kind of idiotic question is favorite bible verse? And did anyone have the guts to say “eat, drink and be merry”?

5.
On September 27th, 2007 at 9:18 am, kevo said:

I agree, Russert offered up some plainly unsubstantive questions to the candidates. It seemed as if he was delighted more in himself for asking gotcha questions than he was concerned to ask questions in regard to where we as a nation have been headed, and what each of these candidates would do to help us turn in a different, better, direction. Russert needs to go away! -Kevo

6.
On September 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am, zeitgeist said:

Gee, why would anyone have thought to ask about something like S-CHIP yesterday? Kind of high expectations for Timm-ay dont ya think? I mean, he didn’t have the benefit of that No Childs Left Behind things that helped our childrens to learn.

7.
On September 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am, Brian said:

“Russert asked the “legacy” question: ‘Senator Clinton, if you are the nominee, it will be 28 years, from 1980 to 2008, where there’s been a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket. Is it healthy for democracy to have a two-family political dynasty?’ Clinton responded, ‘I thought Bill was a pretty good president.’ The answer drew cheers and applause, reminding us once again that Clinton is very good at not answering questions.”

I don’t see how this sort of sequence of leaders establishes a dynasty. Each family is from a different political party that had different values. I simply fail to see what Bush being elected in 1980 and 1984 as the vice president and then in 1988 as the president, and then being kicked out of office in 1992 by Clinton, has to do with a dynasty. Maybe she chose not to answer the question because it’s so fucking stupid and has no satisfactory answer.

8.
On September 27th, 2007 at 10:35 am, OkieFromMuskogee said:

I have a home-run “favorite bible verse” for any Democrat who wants to use it the next time that stupid question comes up. And it WILL come up:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”

Everyone’s free to use it. It’s in the public domain.

9.
On September 27th, 2007 at 10:54 am, doubtful said:

Maybe she chose not to answer the question because it’s so fucking stupid and has no satisfactory answer. -Brian

I completely disagree. It is important why in a country of over 300 million people that a handful of related people consistently share the most powerful office.

Sure, they may be from two families, but they’re really just taking advantage of the pendulum of the political world and ignorant people’s tendency to vote based on name recognition.

Each family is from a different political party that had different values. -Brian

I can’t wait to see proof of that. So far we’ve seen Hillary authorize the Iraq war, fund it repeatedly, vote for the Patriot Act which just keeps getting determined unconstitutional by a fairly conservative court, use the weight of her husband’s former office to manipulate the media, and now lay the ground work for the invasion of Iran.

How will our lives be different under the Clinton wing of the American Political Dynasty exactly?

10.
On September 27th, 2007 at 11:27 am, Haik Bedrosian said:

I wouldn’t call the Clintons a dynasty until Chelsea becomes president.

11.
On September 27th, 2007 at 11:40 am, calvinthecat said:

calvin thinks that Mike Gravel would be a much better Preznit than is the current occupant of the WH or any of the Republick wannabes.

In terms of movement, Kucinich made the most of his opportunities and came across very well, indeed.

Slick Hillie did not stand out as one might expect of “the” frontrunner.

Biden, Dodd, Edwards showed well. Richardson, not as well.

calvin tries to capture in his mind’s eye, each of these candidates campaigning during a general election against the panopoly of republicks. Who shows up best?

It’s a tough call. The next President will have to deal with an economy which is now being held together with smoke and mirrors. This issue needs to move forward in the debate over funding the Iraq debacle.

calvin now thinks that the Moveon.org ad should have read: General Petraeus and President Betraeus. It’s class warfare and the class clown is winning.

12.
On September 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am, Edward Copeland said:

At some point, Hillary’s refusal to answer direct questions she doesn’t like (even easy ones like whom would she back in a Cubs-Yankees World Series. She’d alternate? Puh-lease. Does that mean that whoever gets the first game she’s rooting to win for by default because they’d get to four games first?) will have to remind dispirited Democratic supporters of her opponents as to why her negatives are so high and why she’d be a disaster as the nominee. That said, her opponents need to get their game on. Hillary is easy to criticize, even if Howard Wolfson will inevitably come out calling them personal attacks. You don’t have to be nasty, but you do have to differentiate. That’s the whole point of elections. Otherwise, why are the other seven even there? At least Biden answered directly and Edwards got in some hits, but Obama must realize he can be above the fray AND take her apart at the same time. The most embarrassing moment I thought belonged to Chris Dodd, not that he has a chance anyway. Russert lobbed him a softball when he asked him what he meant by saying Hillary was Dubya’s preferred candidate and he balked instead of just saying forcefully, “Because even someone as incompetent as Bush knows that Sen. Clinton would be the easies candidate for his party to beat in the 2008 General Election and the Democratic Party cannot afford to take that chance.”

13.
On September 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pm, doubtful said:

I wouldn’t call the Clintons a dynasty until Chelsea becomes president. -Haik

I know that anecdotes do not data make, but I’ve got a friend who is typically disengaged, but has been outraged by the current administration enough not to tune me out when I rant during my lunches with him.

He thinks his vote doesn’t count. No matter what I tell him, he’s convinced that his vote wouldn’t matter.

Hillary’s lead has not helped my cause. He’s convinced she’s the preordained successor to the new American throne and that after she fucks it up for four years and gets us into another war with Iran that Jeb Bush will be the next successor.

Would Chelsea be next? Jenna? Or by that time will nothing be left of the Constitution and we’ll just have an outright dictatorship?

As much as I’ve tried to convince him his vote does count, he’s starting to make more sense to me.

Is it really to much to ask that we not allow more than 10% of the country’s history to be helmed by two prominent families?

Of course, we could just vote on her anti-war record and respect for our rights, though. Oh, right.

Early primaries favor the successor model because they place the focus on name recognition and not qualification or position. Anyone who wants to end this war and not start another one should know that Hillary is not qualified.

I will absolutely not support or vote for someone who will continue the total war philosophy of the current Administration.

14.
On September 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pm, Tom Cleaver said:

Her vote for Kyl-Lie erman yesterday demonstrates that Hillary Clinton still doesn’t get it and that she’s as trustworthy as her husband (in other words, not at all). Hopefully, when she’s decisively defeated next February, it will mean both of them get the hell out of public life and leave us the hell alone with their lies and bullshit.

15.
On September 27th, 2007 at 12:45 pm, Brian said:

“Sure, they may be from two families, but they’re really just taking advantage of the pendulum of the political world and ignorant people’s tendency to vote based on name recognition.”

I’m really not sure what to make of this suggestion, other than that you think people voted for Bush because of his father and people will vote for Clinton because of her husband, only because of their last names. Perhaps I’m giving too much credit to people, but I’m sure it’s more than that. The ideas behind each person–good or bad, significant or insignificant–are what make the difference. Sen. Clinton and President Bush are connected to certain ideas in part because of their names, but without any values, it’s just a name.

“I can’t wait to see proof of that. So far we’ve seen Hillary authorize the Iraq war, fund it repeatedly, vote for the Patriot Act which just keeps getting determined unconstitutional by a fairly conservative court, use the weight of her husband’s former office to manipulate the media, and now lay the ground work for the invasion of Iran.

How will our lives be different under the Clinton wing of the American Political Dynasty exactly?”

This is exactly what I expected: someone to suggest that they are different only in party affiliation. How true that is remains a separate issue. The base of each party does have an influence on what each party’s leadership does, and if you’re suggesting that the two parties are so similar as to be indistinguishable, then I’m not sure what to tell you. Each party may have shared characteristics that you don’t like, but I think anyone who suggests the past seven years would have been no different with a Democrat in the White House isn’t fully connected to reality.

16.
On September 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm, Ohioan said:

Kucinich rocked! Best line of the day:

“That may be the NBC story. Now here’s the truth”

Loved it. Also loved Biden’s slam on Guiliani. The Dems need to do more of exposing Guiliani and Thompson…

17.
On September 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pm, Rian Mueller said:

* Russert asked the “legacy” question: “Senator Clinton, if you are the nominee, it will be 28 years, from 1980 to 2008, where there’s been a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket. Is it healthy for democracy to have a two-family political dynasty?” Clinton responded, “I thought Bill was a pretty good president.” The answer drew cheers and applause, reminding us once again that Clinton is very good at not answering questions.

That’s a really unfair question and I don’t blame Clinton at all for ignoring it.

First, lumping Clinton with the Bushes is unfair, indeed any lumping is unfair. George HW ran for VP twice and ran for President twice. Bill Clinton ran for president twice (once overlapping with George HW’s run). George W ran twice. Who should the “political dynasty” be attributed to here? The anecdote used to be that the GOP always had either a Bush or a Dole, but really we’re just talking about the Bushes, who have run in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2004, not the Clintons or the Doles, who have just been used anecdotally to fill in the holes.

Second, the implication is inherently an undemocratic restriction, like term limits, only not because of any term of office of her own, but because her husband served 8 years and the Bushes have served 20 years. The argument is basically – the Bushes have ran for president or vice president for a very long time, and the one time they didn’t run, Bill Clinton was there. Is it healthy for the country for you to run because the Bushes ran so much and your husband ran twice? It’s absurd.

18.
On September 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm, puffin said:

I watched the debate and thought the Democrats put on a rather disgusting show, hollering and waving their hands to top each other’s willingness to ban smoking because of the “dangers of second-hand smoke”. What ludicrous, pseudo-scientific, middle-browed, bourgeois nonsense.

What happened to Democrats who opposed bullying and who defended maligned minorities? This is why conservatives blame the Democrats for what they call the “nanny state”. Give Americans a bandwagon and they’ll jump on it with no thought to critical thinking.

I would have hoped Democrats would have more sense and more decency. But they proved last night they’re as priggish as any tsk-tsking bible-thumper. God help us all.

19.
On September 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm, doubtful said:

…you think people voted for Bush because of his father and people will vote for Clinton because of her husband, only because of their last names. -Brian

Name recognition is a powerful force that is hard to overcome. Moving the primaries up only benefits those with the most recognizable names and has nothing to do with issues, values, or positions. Name recognition is why, despite ending the war being a primary goal for many voters, the candidate most likely to continue and in fact expand the war polls the best.

…f you’re suggesting that the two parties are so similar as to be indistinguishable… -Brian

I’m not suggesting the Democratic party is like the Republicans. I’m suggesting Hillary is like Bush.

It’s why I’d prefer we select an actual Democrat to run on the ticket.

This is exactly what I expected: someone to suggest that they are different only in party affiliation. -Brian

If that’s what you expected, it would be nice to hear a coherent rebut to all of the reasons I listed why she isn’t that much different than Bush.

I’d love to know why:

-She authorized force in Iraq. Saying it was ‘unfortunate’ doesn’t count. Luck had nothing to do with it. At least Edwards has admitted it was a mistake.

-She voted for the Patriot Act, Constitution be damned.

-She threatens to deny media access to her husband, a former President if they even hint at being critical of her, a Presidential Candidate.

-She wants to go to war with Iran. She’s as much as said she’s ‘preparing for the next war,’ and she voted with many other so-called Democrats for Kyl-Lie just yesterday, laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iran.

…I think anyone who suggests the past seven years would have been no different with a Democrat in the White House isn’t fully connected to reality. -Brian

I’m not even close to suggesting that. I’m suggesting the four years following 2008 won’t look any different if we elect Hillary. Honestly, is this the best we can do?

I’m all for a Democrat getting elected instead.

20.
On September 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pm, Prior Aelred said:

Well, I agree with Kucinich, but I hope to vote for Edwards (who I fear is the only Democrat who has a chance of winning the Electoral College — if we’re lucky).

21.
On September 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pm, bjobotts said:

You are following the beltway logic again on Not mentioning Kucinich. He’s been there and done that on every single issue out there that is important to the American public. His healthcare plan far surpasses Clinton’s…but you mention only Clinton’s. Kucinich so far surpasses Clinton and all the other candidates on everything from NAFTA to the Patriot Act to Iraq and Iran…everything!…and the beltway logic is cut him out of the picture..literally…ignore him and pretend he didn’t say anything…don’t include his name in the polls so it will look like he’s not even in the race…the only candidate that will bring real change…voted right the first time on every issue…and you don’t mention him.

He’s the only one that will make a difference..and you continually ignore him. Have you ever looked at all he has said and done…what he represents? Electability is not an issue in this presidential race and for once we don’t have to compromise on the best candidate to get him elected.
Kucinich/Edwards ’08…the truth ticket…the real change. Open your eyes.