Monday, January 21, 2008
Democratic debate notes
Yes, the moderator is Wolf Blitzer, which probably means that the debate will stink, but I'll follow along with one ear and put my free-floating comments up here in numbered paragraphs nonetheless.
The prospect of "relevant" debate questions on Martin Luthor King's birthday is tedious, to say the least.
1. Apparently Joe Johns, the first questioner, and Hillary Clinton agree that "the economy is the most important issue." Those of us who appreciate that a counterinsurgency is a long road should delight in the apparently declining interest of the anti-war party in that particular subject.
2. Suddenly everybody is referring to "green collar" jobs. What are those? I got no memo on this subject. I admit, my reading of the lefty blogs has flagged in recent months, but this still seems new to me.
3. Obama: "You travel around South Carolina, you see the textile mills that John's father worked in." No. Way. John Edwards' father worked in a textile mill?
Hill deflects all the left-wing snark over free trade by hammering on George W. Bush. I suppose if we have to throw Dubya under the bus to defend the Clinton free trade position, I'm all for that.
4. Obama: "There's a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton, and her husband, that are not factually accurate." Gloves off obviously. More interesting is the tactical linking of Hillary and Bill in a Democratic debate sponsored by the black Congressional caucus. It seems to me that Obama knows, or at least hopes, that Bill's cred with African-Americans means nothing against him.
5. Goddamn, Wolf bites.
6. This tiff between Clinton and Obama over the fly-specking of Obama's record diminishes both of them. Obama pulls out the "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart" line, which is one of the things I like about her.
7. Clinton: I'm here, not my husband. Obama: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes." Clinton: "Well, we both have passionate and committed spouses." Seriously? She did not just say that her husband is "passionate and committed" on national TV. Yes, she did. Yowzer!
Edwards calls this exchange, which has been transportingly petty, "squabbling." "How many children will this get health care for?" Edwards scores, and makes the two frontrunners look like children.
8. Thirty minutes in, John Edwards is winning this debate, by the way. He's very eloquent, pounding away at the topics that matter to the left, and pandering to the audience in the theater. The riff on "predatory" lending is priceless. Fraudulent, but priceless. He has made Hillary and Barack look petty and small, and will probably chew into both of them as the result of this debate.
Hillary is a lot more responsible on the substance, notwithstanding her tedious rhetoric. Obama is the most thoughtful on the subject, by the way, and studiously not pandering to the mostly black audience.
9. Stephen Green is also live-blogging, but he claims, at least, that he is substantially more in the bag than I will admit.
10. Obama's response to Hillary's "worked for a slumlord" smear was kid gloves. He said he worked for a law firm, as an associate, and did about five hours of work for a church group that had partnered with the landlord. Why he did not burp out the phrase "Rose Law Firm" is beyond me, although perhaps those words do not have the same totemic significance on the left.
11. The audience is in it for the left, that's for sure. If one were to measure South Carolina by its Republican and Democratic debate audiences, it would be the most polarized state in the country.
12. Whoa. Edwards is shooting at Barack, picking up Hillary's charge about Obama's rampant voting of "present" in lieu of taking sides on an issue. Help for Hillary from an unexpected place, and evidence for my conspiracy theory that Edwards is playing to be Hillary's VEEP.
13. What's up with all the rear view shots of Hillary? Yes, she is huge and wore a terrifically unflattering nipped at the waist pants suit, but still. I hate to sound all Naomi Wolf, but what is CNN doing with those camera angles?
14. Edwards has conjured up a unique argument in favor of requiring people to buy health insurance -- that failure to do so is equivalent to making Social Security optional. Leveraging the sanctity of Social Security into a bullet-proof argument for universal healthcare -- interesting tactic.
15. Question to Hillary: "Are you looking to end this war, or win it?" She is "looking to bring our troops home." It is interesting, and disheartening, that Hillary Clinton believes -- as she obviously does -- that choking out even the possibility of victory will cost her votes in the Democratic primary battle. Why has even the concept of victory become so unpopular among Democratic activists?
Stephen Green: "And she's the hawk in this limp-wristed field."
If there were any votes for even the concept of victory among activist Democrats, one of these guys would have said "victory would be great, but...." Instead, there is no desire for victory, no ambition for association with it, and no votes to be gained from it.
16. What is this objection to negotiating the right to permanent bases in Iraq? If, as Hillary suggests, it is Bush's position that it is a presidential prerogative to negotiate such leases, then presumably any subsequent president could abrogate Bush's deal. Why would we not want to have the option to have permanent bases? Could one of you lefties out there explain it to me?
Stephen Green sidebar:
Obama says the troops should be brought home and ordered to lay broadband cable in West Virginia or something. Also, al Qaeda is “stronger than at any time since 2001.” Does he have one single metric to back that up? Like maybe a couple tumbling office buildings or something?
The competing claims on the left about the threat of al Qaeda are very difficult to track. It is either a huge threat (if one is trying to prove that Iraq was a great "distraction") or a grossly overstated threat (if one is trying to prove that we should never drop eaves on a phone call to northwest Pakistan without probable cause). Personally, I prefer that Obama is putting himself down for al Qaeda as existential threat; my fear is that he is surrounded by people who do not actually believe that.
17. On the question of ending poverty, is there any responsibility for the poor people themselves to end their own poverty? There is no evidence of this among the three Democrats. It is as if it cannot happen, even though we know it does every day.
18. Obama is hilarious and, dare I write it, articulate on the race question... "There's no doubt that in a race where you have an African-American, a woman, and, and,... John [raucous laughter among Democrats present]..."
19. Obama on Bill Clinton's "affinity" for the African-American community: "No [responding to Hillary's smirk], this I'm serious about." Glad he warned us. "I would have to investigate more Bill Clinton's dancing abilities and some of his other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was in fact a brother." Heh. Hill: "I'm sure that can be arranged."
One thing about the Dems this time around, they are having fun with it. The laughter among them is a lot more appealing than the childish bickering at the beginning of the debate. As I wrote the other night, no matter what one thinks of Hillary and Barack, they are both manifestly stronger as candidates and likely presidents than either Al Gore or John Kerry. So the Republicans have a race on their hands regardless.
20. No way. John Edwards' father worked in a "meal"? And the men and women who worked in the "meal" were worth every bit as much as the men who owned the "meal." So what's the big complaint?
21. Stephen Green interlude:
Question to Clinton, paraphrased: “Your husband has become something of a loudmouth, huh?” Answer: “This campaign is not about our spouses.” If it was, I’d be so totally voting for Kucinich.
I'd be totally for Fred Thompson.
22. John Edwards just predicted that John McCain would become the Republican nominee, and that the important thing is for Democrats to pick somebody who can beat him. Says that "Democrats cannot concede" a long list of southern states, that Democrats must be able to compete everywhere with John McCain, and then says that his point has "nothing to do with race or gender." Not sure the audience is buying it. "I can go anywhere in America and compete with John McCain and win." Was that code for "I am the lowest risk candidate among the rednecks for obvious reasons"?
23. Hill: "If John McCain is the Republican nominee, we know the general election will be about national security." Hillary claims the greatest chance under such circumstances.
Edwards is sneakily good on this. His argument is that John McCain has dedicated himself to cleaning up the influence of "corporate lobbyists," and that it is "dangerous" to put up somebody against McCain who is not clean.
Hill responds, citing the gifts from the "trial lawyers." Edwards says that is not the same as "corporate lobbyists." No, trial lawyers are a much narrower and more destructive interest than "corporate" lobbyists as a class, which tend to have countervailing influence on each other.
Obama: "Nobody's hands are perfectly clean in politics. That is true." Goes on to describe a difference between deep involvement with corporate lobbyists and "some ancilliary involvement." Finely sliced cheese, I would say.
24. On national security, Obama says "we have to overcome the politics of fear" in this country. How does that square with his (results-oriented?) claim that al Qaeda is stronger than it has ever been? Is that not meant to create fear that the Bush administration has left us defenseless?
Edwards, meanwhile, believes that it depends "entirely on us" whether poor people around the world choose to side with al Qaeda or the United States. This is typically lefty thinking on foreign policy -- that what the enemy does is of no significance, because people will love us or hate us only for what we do. I suppose in the end that is why Hillary remains the least-bad Democrat on national security -- I just do not think she shares that view, even if she tips her hat to it to get lefty votes.
That's all. Sleep well. Or not.
13 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jan 21, 09:26:00 PM:
Haven't watched much of the Dem side, but I'm liking Obama for his poise. Hillary disgusts me as usual, and Edwards is just a pathetic ass kisser.
By , at
Mon Jan 21, 09:30:00 PM:
Great swipe at Edwards ... we have a woman, an African American, and John ... Edwards is still making funny faces, and was set up as the stooge on state.
I happen to know some folks who were involved with the Poverty work Edwards said he was doing (while instead working on learning about poverty by working in the hedge fund). He's such a friggin' fraud ... the no show who trades on the lie.
Tell me about poverty from the 28600 place ...
By , at
Mon Jan 21, 10:09:00 PM:
Edwards needs a new suit jacket, or a new tailor. His coat is too small.
As for McCain ... anytime a Dem candidate or big media push a GOP candidate you know they think they're the most easily beat. I was for Rudy, and would still be happy to see him as our candidate, but Romney always shows up so well prepared I'm liking him.
Edwards is clearly the weakest guy in the mix, and it seems like he's running to be Obama's Veep.
And I'm nauseated watching these losers suck up to the black vote, with the presumption that the black vote is for the black candidate. That's the underlying women for Hillary, white guys for Johnny ... I think Obama is a condender, and he's taking swipes at both Bill and Hillary. I can dig that, even though he's not going to get my vote.
By 
honestpartisan, at
Mon Jan 21, 11:00:00 PM:
Why would we not want to have the option to have permanent bases? Could one of you lefties out there explain it to me?
in the battle that really matters -- the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims who could sympathize with Al Qaeda -- forswearing permanent bases can only help. As far as that goes within Iraq, Larry Diamond gives more details here.
By SR, at
Mon Jan 21, 11:05:00 PM:
Things have changed quite a lot in Iraq since Larry Diamond opined in 2005! You wouldn't know it from Dem talking points.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Mon Jan 21, 11:39:00 PM:
Why hasn't Obama just come out and speak the 800 gorilla--that Bill Clinton endangered the Democratic Party by his philandering and other bullcrap, and though Newtie and the other GOP douchebags were responsible for turning the Lewinsky thing into a circus, it should never have happened in the first place?
Did they talk about this so-called stimulus package (as the Asian markets groan)? $800 for folks who at best will pay their burdensome bills or shocking health plan or Rx costs, rather than go out at buy yet another Wii, Madden Football or f-150 pickup like Dubya wants? (and of course we go on borrowing money from Red China to fund this war). In other words, yet another useless debate...
...btw, John McCain's daughter said that Chelsea Clinton was her role model. Jeez, the world's turned upside down...
By honestpartisan, at
Mon Jan 21, 11:43:00 PM:
Things have changed quite a lot in Iraq since Larry Diamond opined in 2005!
Diamond recommends that the Bush administration talk to Sunni insurgents, but doesn't think they will. Since then, they have; that's part of the shrewd decision to side with indigenous Sunni insurgents over Al Qaeda. Otherwise, Diamond's analysis still strikes me as germane.
By , at
Tue Jan 22, 12:14:00 AM:
Dont plan to watch its just a bunch of liberal demaceats making the usial promises they will never ever keep
By , at
Tue Jan 22, 01:48:00 AM:
Democrats are more of Bill Clinton's poll-driven, media triangulating National Security. Scheuer charges Clinton wanted Extraordinary Rendition so the AQ would be picked up without political cost, and balked at every cost of actually doing something to kill Osama (overlawyered PC junk).
The problem of AQ and Jihad won't be dealt with by making "muslims love us" or anything else but deterrence -- fear of what the US will DO to the people and regimes of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, and a few other places. This means a whacking big Navy, 20 carrier groups, new UAVs and more nukes and missiles, plus demonstrated resolve to use it by REALLY unloading. No "shock and awe" but making an example, an awful one, out of someone and clearly articulating exactly WHAT needs to be done to avoid it.
Which would amount to cracking down on AQ.
Muslims due to their polygamy and other barbaric social organizations (big men hoard all the women) are unstable and violent societies and find peace by attacking weak appearing outsiders. They will never change (and haven't for 1500 years) so the only thing to do is deter them by periodic examples.
Dems think everyone lives in suburban Scarsdale NY or Malibu.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jan 22, 06:42:00 AM:
honest party -
I think a lot has happened since Diamond wrote that in August 2005. The most important thing was that Iraq went to the bring of sectarian civil war after al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque. My sense -- and I make no claim to have anything more than a highly derivative feeling from reading the stuff I read -- is that Iraqis have come to regard the American presence quite differently. We are making it possible again for them to step back from the undifferentiated sectarian violence. So now it isn't that we are "caught" in a civil war, as the Democrats have been saying for a couple of years, but that various groups in Iraq might indeed feel the need to re-arm if we withdraw. So the "bullish" hawk case is now that the insurgency is in irreperable decline, and that within a year or two it will be nothing more than a nuisance. Then, the American presence might well become quite similar to the American presence in many other countries.
On this last point, I think the Democratic claim that the president needs to submit a ratifiable treaty to the Senate on the question of bases in Iraq is just absurd. We have troops in literally dozens of countries around the world without any such treaty -- it merely requires an agreement with the hose country and an order to move the troops there. Hillary's claim that it needs the advice and consent of the Senate strikes me as a massive weakening of executive power, and one that she would definitely regret if she established the precedent.
By , at
Tue Jan 22, 11:08:00 AM:
no matter what one thinks of Hillary and Barack, they are both manifestly stronger as candidates and likely presidents than either Al Gore or John Kerry.
The same could be said of a sack of gravel.
By , at
Tue Jan 22, 11:33:00 AM:
My impression is that all of them are clueless economically and on national defense, and Hillary is particularly bewildering as she seems to have a frightening sense of self-confidence despite a near-total lack of experience. Very adolescent. Obama strikes me as the most balanced of the group, which is a reaction I didn't expect. Edwards, I just can't stand. I admit I flipped the mute button on a couple of times listening to him pander every which way.
My other impression is that they seem, as a group, highly confident of a Democratic victory in the general election. If I were Iraqi, I'd be moving assets to Kuwait.
By davod, at
Tue Jan 22, 12:14:00 PM:
"Why hasn't Obama just come out and speak the 800 gorilla--that Bill Clinton endangered the Democratic Party by his philandering..."
Because such a statement would allow Clinton the opportunity for another vote winning tear jerking performance.
Not to mention remind all the Black women in the audience of the philandering they have put up with, for the sake of the children.
