Round II

During a series of exchanges about health care during last night’s Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, I wrote in my notes, “Substantive.” Reading over the transcript, you can see that these candidates engaged in a discussion that really told viewers something about the issue — no bumper-sticker slogans, plenty of specifics.

It was a stark contrast to anything Republicans have offered in their debates. In the last GOP event, most of the candidates tripped over each other to endorse torture. In the Dem event last night, viewers heard a detailed discussion of health-insurance mandates. Maybe I’m a geek, but for all the talk about these debates being all-fluff, no-substance, the Dems put on an excellent, informative, and honest show last night.

There’s been some buzz that last night was the when the gloves came off. The first debate was polite and non-confrontational, whereas in New Hampshire, the candidates started throwing elbows around. I think some of this is overstated, but if you missed it, there was one exchange that will be talked about for a while.

EDWARDS: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate and voted. They were among the last people to vote. And I think that the importance of this is — they cast the right vote, and I applaud them for that. But the importance of this is, they’re asking to be president of the United States, and there is a difference between making clear, speaking to your followers, speaking to the American people about what you believe needs to be done. And I think all of us have a responsibility to lead on these issues — not just on Iraq, but on health care, on energy, on all the other issues.

OBAMA: Well look, the — I think it is important to lead. And I think, John, the fact is, is that I opposed this war from the start. So you are about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue.

And, you know, I think it’s important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this. Now, the fact of the matter is Joe has a legitimate perspective. It is not easy to vote for cutting off funding because the fact is there are troops on the ground. And I’ll let Hillary speak for herself, but the fact of the matter is, is that all of us exercise our best judgment, just as we exercised our best judgment to authorize or not authorize this war. And I think it’s important for us to be clear about that.

You’ll notice there was actually more than one dig in there. First was the “late on leadership” line, second was “exercised our best judgment” line.

It was hardly harsh as political barbs go, but it at least showed that the deferential period of the primary race appears to be over.

Here are my takes on the candidates themselves:

Hillary Clinton — If I had to pick one “winner,” I’d have to say Hillary really excelled last night. She was sharp and articulate, forceful without appearing forced. At one point, after a vague question for the field about using the military in Darfur, she lectured Wolf Blitzer: “Wolf, we’re not going to engage in these hypotheticals. I mean, one of the jobs of a president is being very reasoned in approaching these issues, and I don’t think it’s useful to be talking in these kind of abstract, hypothetical terms.” It may not sound like much, but it was actually a flash of leadership. My only Clinton-related complaint was, in response to a question about terrorism, she said, “I believe we are safer than we were.” It was the only thing she said that I strongly disagreed with.

Barack Obama — Most observers seemed to believe Obama delivered a lackluster performance in the first debate, but I don’t see how anyone will say the same thing about last night. Obama seemed more confident and more at ease. When Blitzer asked whether English should be the nation’s “official” language, Obama didn’t hesitate to offer the right answer: “This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us. Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is, how can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy. And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.” He also subtly undercut the Clinton and Edwards line on the NIE by citing Bob Graham’s vote against the 2002 Iraq resolution.

John Edwards — I don’t think Edwards came across as well last night as he did in the first debate. My notes on him were thin.

Chris Dodd — Dodd didn’t get a chance to talk much, which was a shame, because when he answered questions, he delivered. Indeed, one of my favorite lines of the entire night was the very last answer of the debate. The candidates were asked about their priorities for their first 100 days, and Dodd said, “I’d try to restore the constitutional rights in our country. This administration has done great damage to them. I would do that on the first day. I wouldn’t wait a hundred days on those issues.” Nice.

Joe Biden — Biden’s experience in the Senate shows; he’s really quite strong in these debates. Darfur, gays in the military, defending his Iraq vote — Biden was forceful and direct. Like Dodd, he probably deserved more air time.

Bill Richardson — Richardson’s stock is dropping in my book. Following a rough outing on Meet the Press, Richardson didn’t exactly turn things around last night. He described himself as a “pro-growth Democrat,” as if Dems usually aren’t. He endorsed a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, which is ridiculous. I lost count of how many times he reminded people he’s a governor. Unimpressive.

Dennis Kucinich — Kucinich started annoying me last night. First, his answers start to sound robotic, like he’s memorized certain phrases, which he’ll repeat on cue. Indeed, go back to the transcript of the first debate and you’ll see that Kucinich not only answered questions the same way, but also with the exact same phrases. Second, he insisted that Dems are responsible for the disaster in Iraq. I expect that from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, not from one of the Dems’ most progressive candidates.

Mike Gravel — In talking about VA care, Gravel mentioned taking his “meds.” As a rule, that’s probably not a good idea.

What’d you think?

The debate was on in the background here, so I caught some of it. In all, I agree with CB’s assessment. But these “debates” are still irrelevant. So little of substance is ever spoken in them that anything “substantial” comes off as major news story. Too often, I find myself judging “performance” by the same superficial standards of the TV play-by-play guys. The pre-game and post-game “analysis” was hilarious.

My overall impression is the same every time. All of them (except for Kucinich and the other guy) are desperate to avoid a perceived mistake. They all can slam Bush, who isn’t running. They explain their votes or non-votes in the best light. If they “take the gloves off,” there are still a pair or two left on.

Yawner. Round II.

  • I had one problem with Clinton–when she was going on and on saying the Iraq War is George Bush’s war. She (and all the other Dem candidates–especially you Mr Kucinich) really needs to expand that a little to: “George Bush’s and the Republican Party’s War, a war that all of the leading GOP candidates for president wholeheartedly support and have stated they would continue ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Giuliani. McCain. Romney. Thompson. Every one would go against the best interests of the US and against the wishes of the American people.”

    Or something to that effect.

  • I respectfully disagree with bubba @ #2. The leading GOP candidate, Ron Paul, opposes the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq and favors immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.

    However, I wholeheartedly agree that the rest of ReThug candidates for CEO of Slavery Incorporated favor the continued U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq and the continuation of the “Global War On Truth.”

    Dennis Kucinich was still the only Democratic candidate on that stage last night that has the courage to favor the impeachment of the international criminals in the Executive Branch. I could care less if he sounded like a robot, CB. All of the Democratic candidates should memorize this line: “I rise in support of House Resolution 333.”

  • Clinton: We applaud dodging a question? We’ll ponder how you’d handle an international crisis…HOW? If not with hypotheticals. Very Bush-y, to me. Almost like she was declaring she wouldn’t get into an argument with herself.

    Biden, Dodd: Agreed. I’m really tired of the candidates with all the press coverage getting so much more of THIS free air time too. It becomes anointment by the MSM. How’s THAT been working out for us the past 50 years?

    Richardson: Ouch. How is this man being so easily outshone by such policy and charisma lightweights? He’s trying too hard to win. He won’t say the stuff that made him stand out so he’s lost in the crowd with Biden and Dodd. Third tier, here he comes…

    Gravel: Cheap shot, CB. If I’m his age and taking no medication, I’ll write a book. Some of the Republican candidates should be on meds too but we’re not talking for hypertension and arthritis there.

  • Am I the only one that gets a strong Lincoln-esque vibe off Barack Obama?

    I was somewhat annoyed that CNN decided to place Hillary right in the center. She thus takes away oxygen from the other candidates. She’s not the heir presumptive at this point although the MSM would love to anoint her already and then spend the rest of her doomed candidacy tearing her down. We need to get out of that cycle ASAP.

    Bill Richardson is a good guy, but he’s not presidential material in that he doesn’t give off a good first impression. He looks like a slouchy uncle with ill-fitting or rumpled clothes. He needs to get the veep slot though. He would probably be as good or better than Al Gore was as veep for Clinton.

    The other candidates, Dodd, Biden, etc. are just wasting our time.

  • Kucinich is annoying only for stylistic reasons… as far as his point on Dems being complicit in keeping the Iraq war going, he is DEAD ACCURATE. Voting against the Iraq Capitulation Bill would not have hurt the troops in any way. It’s about time we have an honest debate about that.

  • My impressions from watching a bit more than half of it, in different chunks:

    1) Yes, Hillary is substantial, but it drives me nuts every time she goes down that 9/11 fearmongering road, demagoguing the “war on terror.” Edwards IMO is absolutely right that it’s a bumper-sticker, not a strategy–and that its purpose was entirely Republican political advantage. On the rest of the foreign policy questions, I agree that she showed a level of detail that was clearly superior to her colleagues.

    2) Obama was miles, miles better last night than in the first debate. He just seemed sharper, and he more than held his own in the exchange with Edwards. He’s the best “on TV” candidate, I think because he just seems calmer than the rest of them–all that McLuhan stuff describes Obama’s edge there. His response on the tax question was terrific, taking a typically idiotic query about specifics (“what number is ‘rich’?”) and drilling down to something more fundamental–the premise on which he’d base taxing and spending decisions.

    3) Edwards was disadvantaged last night because the substance never got around to his big area of strength: domestic economic issues. But I thought he held his own on Iran and other questions.

    4) I really like Dodd. Hard to imagine how he emerges, but I’d like to see it happen.

    5) Richardson IMO was better last night than he was in the first one, or on MTP, but still not great. The “pro-growth Democrat” line annoyed me too; in general he seems too ready to accept right-wing frames. On foreign policy, though, his substance comes across.

    6) Kucinich really should just STFU. I might have to kick some money to his Dem primary opponent for Congress next year…

  • the best part was that their wasn’t anything close to what the Republicans keep talking about… None of what the Republicans talk about is really all that important for the country, on the contrary it goes against freedom.

    At least the Democrats talked about some serious issues and dodged the bumper sticker responses, most of the time.

    I hope there were a ‘few’ republicans watching who started wondering why they should remain Repubs, considering what their candidates bellow about.

  • What is Dennis Kucinich’s value in these debates? His value is that he appears to be on the Democrat’s “loony left” (and right)–making most of the other Democrats on the stage seem sane, reasonable, and mainstream. This contrast is important because it build credibility to help fend off the coming Republican attacks in the 2008 campaign; the Republican playbook always call smearing the Democrats as too “librul.”

  • “The other candidates, Dodd, Biden, etc. are just wasting our time.”

    Excuse me, but I think you’re just wasting our time with that sycophantic meme.

    Glad to see that nonesuch @ #6 is happy to let the corporate mainstream media decide who the American public will devote their time and attention to.

    After all, if the citizens of the United States, as many predominantly do, somehow ‘accept’ that only those candidates for President that the corporate mainstream media ordain to be “frontrunners” or “top tier” or “leading” candidates are worthy of their time and consideration, aren’t then those same citizens of the United States effectively ‘accepting’ what amounts to a be self-fulfilling, self-serving prophecy?

    Check out Ron Paul on The Daily Show tonight.

  • #11

    Glad to see the Ron Paul/Libertarian meme is still going around. But as a meme, it has a lot of work to do before it successfully propagates with the voters.

    Right now, the meme — and the MSM is correctly following the story line — is Obama, Edwards, and Hillary. The others simply don’t have any attraction, funding, or ideas that allow them to stand out and away from the pack.

    Call me when Ron Paul gets more than 1 percent of the national vote. Until then…. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • I noticed slip kid no more @ #10 has a fetish for pejorative labels. As if the corporate mainstream media didn’t do a good enough job in what amounts to schoolyard name-calling.

    Just what America needs — more pejorative labels! Keep them coming slip kid, and don’t forget, Flush Rimjaughb’s phone lines are open!

  • I missed the debate… but have some comments

    I do like Chris Dodd and think he brings some good ideas.

    While I applaud Clinton and Obama for voting against funding the war, they should have been out in front leading the Dems (as did Dodd) and I agree with Edwards.

    Re immigrants learning English, did any of the candidates point out that while many Repugs are insisting that everyone here speak English, it’s gotten more difficult as the Rs have cut funding for ESL (English as a Second Language) classes? Completely ironic (and moronic).

  • As far as Richardson being the Veep, frankly, I don’t see what he could bring to the ticket. A Vice-Presidential nominee should be someone who helps excite the public about the ticket, and helps to go on the attack against the opposition. Richardson is a policy wonk– specifically, a foreign policy wonk– but an attack dog? Hardly. Besides, with the exception of the current regime, which should not serve as an example for any future presidencies, the office of the Vice-President is hardly a power center. Richardson would be better as the next Secretary of State than as the next Vice-President, as the SecState position would exclusively call upon his area of expertise, foreign policy.

  • Oh, and regarding Chris Dodd– I, too, like his ideas. It’s a shame that someone who is such a strong candidate when it comes to substance would be such a weak candidate in terms of strategy– e.g. what would a white male senator from the northeast bring us? Nothing. No swing states, no key demographics. I wish we could have a northeastern president someday, but unfortunately, our region of strength works against us at the national level. Frankly, if we were going to nominate a northeastern senator in 2004, it should’ve been Dodd rather than Kerry, as Dodd would’ve been a much stronger candidate. Who knows– with, say, a Dodd/Warner ticket, we might’ve actually pulled across the finish line. But, a day late and a dollar short. What we need is a dynamic candidate who can increase turnout with burgeoning constituencies while simultaneously exciting existing ones. So far, out of the current crop of candidates, that’d be Obama.

  • Re Obama’s

    This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us. Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is, how can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy. And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.

    Pretty damn good.

    Especially when you compare it to the spew of stew that slops out of our Emperor’s mouth. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who doesn’t make one’s ears bleed?

    Re Slip kid is no bore:

    What is Dennis Kucinich’s value in these debates? His value is that he appears to be … making most of the other Democrats on the stage seem sane, reasonable, and mainstream.

    You forgot the word “virile.”
    : )

    Re nonesuch:

    She’s not the heir presumptive at this point although the MSM would love to anoint her already and then spend the rest of her doomed candidacy tearing her down. We need to get out of that cycle ASAP.

    You are a seer and a sage.

  • JKap grab yourself a cup of coffee and get real. Do you know the origins of these labels? I’d love to see a world without labels. But, labels are a part of modern political warfare–thanks to conservatives. Put the onus on the masses that respond to labels, not me.

  • The “debate” was simply puffball question after puffball question, with the candidates allowed to simply read from what’s already on their websites. Compare the questions that were asked to the ones at the link and let me know what would have happened if Wolf had asked them on live TV.

    No one who cares about our political system should welcome this type of “debate”.

  • This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us. Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is, how can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy. And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.

    I agree that Obama’s first sentence here was a deft response to a kind of trap question. However, how can anyone think that everyone learns English who lives in this country? That’s clearly not true. If that were true, I wouldn’t have to chose “English” when I go to the ATM.

    I would say it is easier than ever to live in the US and NOT learn English, especially if you are hispanic. There are large Hispanic communities in every area of the country, most public services have signage in Spanish, and most businesses make some accommodations for Spanish-speakers. At the very least, there are some businesses in every sector that cater to the Spanish-speaking population.

    Secondly, and I’m nit-picking here, but the question of how can we come up with a legal immigration policy doesn’t make sense. Congress makes the law, so whatever policy they come up with is legal!! Maybe he meant “constitutional”, but as far as making “legal” policy, that’s redundant.

  • “If that were true, I wouldn’t have to chose “English” when I go to the ATM.”

    Well, that ain’t true–unless we eliminate all foreign tourists from coming to the country. I think if you ever traveled to France, or Spain, or Egypt, or Japan, or China or Norway (or most anyplace outside of the English-speaking world) you would be quite relieved that the ATMs in those countries offer an English option.

    But I will agree that not all people who live in this country, even many who have citizenship, cannot speak English and do not really make the effort to. I have many family members who have been in the US for decades and who still do not grasp the basics of English,a nd who do not really wish to. It isn’t right, but it is what it is. My guess, though, is that with the younger generations this may not be the same or as applcable.

  • Dennis Kucinich was the only one that spoke in favor of a single payer healthcare system. The others either don’t support the concept or are too concerned about losing votes. While it would be a tax increase, especially for the wealthy who got the most tax breaks, the amount of money saved on insurance premiums, copays and such would actually be greater for most Americans.

  • I think it may well be long past the point of no return for a single payer national health care plan.

    We simply cannot afford it (even with jacked up taxes), which is, of course, a reason why Reagan and Bush started pumping up the deficit.

    Thus, the half measures proposed by the candidates that is generating a lot of dissatisfaction.

  • Comments are closed.