I watch debates — so you don’t have to

August 8, 2007

Usually, if a presidential candidates’ debate offers something truly memorable, it’s from one of the candidates, or perhaps an exchange between candidates. Last night, in a debate sponsored by the AFL-CIO, the most memorable moment came from the audience.

Steve Skvara, a retired steel worker from Indiana, with tears in his eyes, asked a poignant, powerful question. (TP has a clip)

“After 34 years with LTV Steel, I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension, and my family lost their health care.

“Every day of my life I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can’t afford to pay for her health care. What’s wrong with America, and what will you do to change it?”

Skvara received a well-deserved standing ovation, and was applauded vigorously by the candidates. “What’s wrong with America?” Given what happened to Skvara — LTV screwed him and his colleagues over by declaring bankruptcy so they wouldn’t have to pay their pensions — it was exactly the right question.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, in a post-debate analysis, added, “I wonder if that wasn’t a moment that’s gonna change American political history.” It’s hard to know what history will embrace, but if Skvara’s 25 emotional seconds in front of that microphone have a lasting impact, America will be better for it.

Oh, and there were a bunch of candidates there, too.

* Hillary Clinton: Clinton has outshined and overshadowed her competitors in the first four debates, but last night, she was merely adequate. It was a B+ performance, whereas she’s usually an easy A. She’s adept at dodging questions, but last night, particularly on NAFTA and Iraq, Clinton’s hedging seemed a little more noticeable than usual. She also heard a few scattered boos for criticizing Obama on Pakistan policy.

* Barack Obama: Obama was the target of some pointed criticism, particularly from Chris Dodd, but he held his own. Indeed, with this being the first debate since his foreign policy remarks from last week, I was curious to see if he backed down at all. It didn’t happen, though there was a subtle shift on Pakistan: “[I]f we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should.” Before, the question was whether Musharraf was willing to act, but last night it was whether Musharraf could act. Hmm.

* John Edwards: If Edwards seemed comfortable at YearlyKos, he was really comfortable in front of the AFL-CIO. He was able to boast about all of his labor work in recent years, and he took a veiled shot at Clinton: “You will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine, saying I am the candidate that big business is betting on,” Edwards said in reference to Clinton, who was featured on Fortune’s cover in July. The low-point for Edwards came when Olbermann asked what he’d do if terrorists seized control of Iraq after an American withdrawal. He said, “Well, we have to prepare for that possibility…. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.” Uh, yeah.

* Chris Dodd: Dodd obviously took his Wheaties before the event, because I can’t recall ever seeing him quite this animated. It seems to represent a shift — if he can’t break through as a staid, experienced senator, he’ll be a bit more of a firebrand. It seemed to work for him; the crowd was generally receptive.

* Joe Biden: No one hurt himself more last night than Biden. He received a question from Deborah Hamner, who lost her husband at the Sago Mine last year. She asked about improving the health and safety in coal mines. Biden gave a cursory answer, before adding some comments about Pakistan policy. Note to Biden: if a sympathetic widow asks a question about mine safety at an AFL-CIO debate, answer the damn question. Besides, every time he’d talk about being a champion for working families, I wrote in my notes, “Bankruptcy bill, bankruptcy bill, bankruptcy bill.”

* Bill Richardson: Was Richardson even there? He didn’t say anything noteworthy, though he managed not to mention the Balanced Budget Amendment, so I guess that’s a plus.

* Dennis Kucinich: Kucinich clearly got the crowd fired up with his unapologetic pro-labor positions, but he exaggerated to comical effect last night, promising to create “billions” of new jobs. (There are 350 million Americans; are we each going to have several careers at the same time?) He also is under the impression that he’ll run unopposed in 2012 after his first imaginary term in the Oval Office.

* Mike Gravel: Gravel refused to answer the AFL-CIO questionnaire, and as such, wasn’t invited to participate. He wasn’t missed.

So, what’d you think?

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, in a post-debate analysis, added, “I wonder if that wasn’t a moment that’s gonna change American political history.”

i sure as hell hope so.

  • Matthews is such a phony. He took that moment to pander to those of us with five-figure incomes.

  • There are 350 million Americans

    [Pedant Alert]

    According to the census bureau, it’s 302.5 million.

    [/Pedant Alert]

  • I watched all but the first ten minutes. It was like watching a game of Hot Potato. 30 seconds to answer the question going one-by-one down the line. Then they upped it to 60 seconds so they could really go into detail. I realize that with seven candidates it’s a difficult job for the moderator to give all the candidates time, and Olbermann did a decent job (That cardboard cutout of Richardson got short shrift), but it would be nice to see a debate that’s not a soundbyte factory. Perhaps they could do single, maybe dual, issue debates so that the candidates could actually DEBATE a topic, rather than this silly nerf gun fight.

  • “I lost a third of my pension”

    That means he kept 2/3, and that ain’t bad. Some Carpetbagger readers might have retirement accounts, but few people in America today have an actual pension.

    Five-figures ranges from 10K to 99K. That’s quite a spread, Slip Kid. I consider any family with a household income over 50K rich.

    I wouldn’t mind joining a union, and I hope unions make a comeback in this country.

  • Kucinich unopposed for a second term?

    Is he planning to pay an ex-con to put a shiv in Lyndon LaRouche?

    Or maybe he’ll use George Bush’s new emergency martial law to call off the election…

  • Kucinich clearly got the crowd fired up…

    But I thought Kucinich wasn’t one of the “more competitive candidates,” CB. I guess 20,000 people at Soldier Field howling for a change to the corporate status quo doesn’t qualify.

    Can’t wait to hear how all the candidates at that debate except Clinton and Obama (and maybe Edwards) are irrelevant and that no matter what happens in the primaries, it is our Democratic Duty to vote in lockstep. Hasenpfeffer!

    P.S. I missed Mike Gravel. But I guess CB meant that he did not miss Gravel through the use of the passive voice.

  • Before, the question was whether Musharraf was willing to act, but last night it was whether Musharraf could act. Hmm.

    Honestly I don’t see the subtle shift; can you elaborate on the “hmmmm….”? I do think that this is a non-debate – like Biden said, if high value targets show up in our sights today, we will act. The issue is how do we change the dynamics on the ground such that people rat out the HVTs? Obama actually addressed that point in his speech, but that wasn’t newsworthy I guess.

    Note to Biden: if a sympathetic widow asks a question about mine safety at an AFL-CIO debate, answer the damn question.

    Exactly. I loved the fact that the crowd booed Biden or anyone else who didn’t answer the damn question.

  • Now what I’d love to see is for Mr. Skvara or someone else in a similar situation (we all know there are many) ask that same question of the GOP field and hear their sniveling responses.

  • Whether Steve Skvara’s question, or John Edwards’ answer to it, represented a “tipping point” or, in Tweety’s words will have “a lasting impact” — the answer is a big, fat NO..

    TeeVee addled America has already forgotten the question and the answer. The IMAGES of Skvara, crippled and crying, and the picture of Tweety’s striped shirt and John Edwards hair remain in our minds (or rather our occipital lobes), along with the visceral reactions planted by advertiser Rove (the $400 haircut, but the issue and the answers were already forgotten when the next topic (Mulasano saying he was from Argentina and was proud to have been recently naturalized) flashed on the TeeVee screen and into our emotional centers. After that our inpball caromed through Biden’s appreciation of the nurses he knew and a host of other emotional experiences etcetera and then it was time for whatever TeeVee “entertainment” followed in your time zone.

    “Lasting effect”? From TeeVee? Almost never.

  • #7 JKap said:

    Can’t wait to hear how all the candidates at that debate except Clinton and Obama (and maybe Edwards) are irrelevant and that no matter what happens in the primaries, it is our Democratic Duty to vote in lockstep.

    —-

    I trust you’re talking re the MSM’s reporting on who’s relevant or not. It’s interesting that we seem to both favor the same candidate (Kucinich). Even though mainstream America, or even most Dems, are not near ready to move that far forward – yet.

    Nonetheless, voting for Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, or anyone who is not one of the top-three (who are pulling away from the field) is not casting an irrelevant vote during the primaries. The fact that Kucinich calls for the scrapping of NAFTA and pulling out of the World Trade Organization raises truly progressive issues that the others must at least address at such forums as organized labor gatherings.

    That said, the people (voters) of America will choose the candidate for the Democratic Party in open primaries. I suspect that despite our support and votes, Kucinich may not win the nomination. So, to those who criticized Lieberman for ignoring the choice of the Democrats re their nominee in CT, should re-examine their position re not voting for any particular excellent, credentialed, lifelong Democratic Party candidate who wins the nomination – especially if she has cleavage and Fox “news” hates her as irrationally and as much as some here seem to.

    Throwing your support to the winning candidate when your choice doesn’t prevail is not “marching in lockstep.” It’s how the Democrats will take the White House in 2008. That is, if you’re not some kind of purer-than-thou, elitist who ignores the lessons of history (see 2000 and the One-Fifth-As-Popular-As-Ross-Perot Party.

    I now expect to hear (over and over again and again) from the tiresome and self-destructive posters here who proclaim proudly and pathetically “if you corporatist, boot-licking idiots vote Hillary in, well, well, them I’m stomping my little feet and sitting the 2008 election out (and voting for President Giuliani by default) – so THERE!

  • I will say that last night’s debate was the most enjoyable so far. I loved Olbermann’s moderating, and the crowd was into it. Skvara’s moment was indeed emotional (both my wife and I shed a tear); however, I think the most telling thing about this group of candidates was the question on NAFTA. Scarily, only Kucinich made sense. Obama’s “president of Canada” comment made me cringe and, to be honest, re-evaluate my stance toward him. I would disagree slightly with CB and say that I thought Richardson did a great job. I wouldn’t count him out just yet. I would agree that Dodd performed wonderfully. He could be my new candidate.

  • I hate to have to take the opposite view here but what is the alternative.

    LTV made a bunch of promises that it couldn’t keep. It borrowed money from people that it promised to pay back. It promised wages and pensions and benefits that it couldn’t pay.

    So LTV declared bankruptcy. It went before a judge and said I have these assets and I have these liabilities.

    The judge followed the law and decided a lot of people were going to lose health benefits, others were going to lose pensions, others were going to lose the repayment of their loans. The stockholders were going to lose virtually everything.

    So what I don’t understand is how LTV screwed this poor guy. Did LTV screw him anymore than it screwed an old lady on SSI who lost her life savings because she got LTV stock in the divorce agreement and refused to sell it until ‘it went back up’? Did LTV screw him any more than it screwed the company that loaned LTV money on the condition that LTV pay back the loan with interest?

    Society might have screwed this poor guy. Maybe society should provide national health insurance. Maybe society should guarantee an in income to him.

    If you want LTV to make good on its promises to him then who should LTV have hurt even more to get the money to make good on the promises to this one individual.

  • Chris Mathews worked really hard this time to frame the debate in the most irrelevant terms possible. Some examples of his insightful analysis in the first five minutes following the debate:
    His first remark was about the Barry Bonds question (a crucial issue for working families everywhere), Was Hillary too “shrill,” was Edwards too short to be impressive in that venue, was Hillary’s use of the word “girl” now PC.

    For those of us who grew up watching Cronkite et al, it was truly nauseating to watch. How does this man keep his job?

  • JKap, you would appreciate the “Ron Paul Revolution” banners whith their hip, edgy graphic style popping up guerilla campaign style all over central Iowa this week. He is trying to capture that lightning-in-a-bottle buzz that Dean had four years ago. Unfortunately when I drove down “candidate row” last night (Huckabee, Paul and Dodd all have campaign offices within a couple of blocks of each other) everyone’s lights were burning brightly and staffers were abuzz. . . except at Paul HQ, where the lights were off and all was quiet.

    Kucinich, despite a few strong progressive issues, is nuts. Not so much as Perot, but still. And like Nader, it has become about his own ego (the only explanation for selling his own party out by getting in bed with Faux News). People like CB are not just making up the idea of Kucinich, Gravel and Paul being uncompetitive. You can like them and still be tied to the reality based world. What percentage did Kucinich actually get last time out? Is there a single state poll that has him higher than an asterisk? Yeah, polls have error, polls can be manipulated, but every poll, in every state, when they roughly match the results Kucinich actually obtained four years ago? These three have no money, little staff, have not caught on at all with any critical-mass segment of the public, they aren’t polling well, and on media they do not come off as collected. competent, or ready for the huge job of being President as the candidates ahead of them on traditional metrics.

    This is not a spin job, or a conspiracy, or even a slam. This is just an unavoidable, observable, real-world electoral fact. It does not mean people shouldn’t support one (or more) of those three, or that they have nothing to add to the debate. But CB is on safe ground when he suggests they are uncompetitive.

  • Re: colonpowwow @ #11

    As I have articulated here before, my philosophy is simple —one of the few remaining effectual powers possessed by We, The People, is the right to vote as we choose –or at least as Diebold chooses. Politicians like Clinton, Obama, & Edwards want my vote (at least that’s the theory, right?).

    Much to the chagrin of some, I will vote my conscience in the primary and in the general election.

    Of course, you can exercise all of the political calculation and political solidarity that you choose to. However, when I exercise my solemn and revered Constitutional right to vote for a President in 2008, I will rely on my judgment alone, and not the lowest common denominator of any particular consensus or political affiliation.

    If the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee wants my vote, he or she can come and get it. If that makes my vote irrelevant in anyone’s book, then so be it. And if anyone wants to lambast me, because I am not properly loyal to the Democratic line, I would suggest that they reconsider that sort of groupthink mentality and look at what “loyalty” is doing to the Republican party.

  • JKap

    Of course we agree more than we disagree. I could point to facts and go on and on why any politician is not worhy of my vote. Unfortunately, we’re set up to be a two-party system and that’s the reality-based community we inhabit in Jefferson’s America. I would prefer that we would be set up with multiple parties required to accept and understand less popular progressive ideas through having to form coalitions – but that ain’t happening here by the 2008 elections.

    I could also go on and on about the likely Democratic nominee, whether it is Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or some “nut” like Kucinich (as Zeitgeist so articulately summarized his long, succesful political career against all odds), but the fact is, if we want to get the Republicans out of the White House, we must vote for the nominee who has a shot to accomplish this fact.

    I have no problem recognizing this fact anymore (again, see 2000), and would gladly vote for any of this fine field of Democrats, warts and all (and if Diebold lets me 😉

  • Since when is someone adept at dodging questions deserving of an “A” or even a “B+?”

    I know that we deserve better.

    We deserve better front running candidates.

    We deserve better “debate” formats.

    We deserve better “pundits?”

    Our election process reminds me of a dysfunctional family’s holiday gathering where everyone goes through the rituals in an empty manner, questions why they even bother, and are all disappointed if one even suggests they change something or seriously deal with the root cause of their distress (assuming that anyone even knows they are in distress).

    What I noticed last night was the crowd.

    They booed when candidates didn’t answer the question (when they were being politicians).

    They applauded (not taking in to account the predictable cheers of self-interest agendas) when anyone gave an answer that even hinted at authenticity.

    People are tired – tired of the lying, tired of the slickness, tired of the rehearsed lines and empty rhetoric, just tired of the same old damn thing. They are looking for something fresh and new, something to inspire hope, honesty, openness, inclusion, and authenticity.

    Clinton gets booed while trying to somehow justify lobbyists.

    All the so-called experts can tell us is what amounts to is the predictably mundane, profane, and inane.

    The candidates and the media just don’t get it!

    So, when Obama is perhaps showing some inexperience, or appearing like a politician as he backtracks from his own words while looking for some kind of political safe haven, the crowd embraces him when he talks about including them in foreign affairs.

    What does a “pundit” say – this time Willie Brown? Obama won the crowd but lost the war. He’s correct if winning the war means perpetuating the behind-closed-doors mentality of governing. At least he’s acknowledging that winning over the people isn’t what counts – what counts is winning over the powerful string-pullers. That’s what amounts to “honesty” in the mainstream media. Of course one has to understand the implications of that to understand the truly profound and nefarious meaning behind this whole farce.

    People aren’t dumb! They know when they are being fed a line of “bull.”

    Clinton, Brown, Chris Matthews (however mundane or inane they may be) are all in place because they serve the money structure to various levels and degrees.

    In the meantime those who threaten the status quo of the “haves” are marginalized to the sideline.

    If there were a real debate – something along the lines of the exchange over Pakistan – where candidates were allowed to challenge one another and defend their own views I think we would start to see whom these candidates really are both as people and public servants. I think we would see Gravel and Kucinich emerge as authentic, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson as experienced, and Edwards, Obama, and Clinton as mostly politicians.

    But everything is topsy-turvy in the “real world where those in a debate who are adept at dodging questions get an “A” and in turn, I suppose, the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.

  • Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are the most successful at being politicians in the political arena that constitutes the reality-based community that is Jefferson’s America – post 1900 – and one of them may end up winning the nomination because of this travesty!?!

    Oh my heavens, Pollyanna! I think I am about to succumb to the vapors.

    Perhaps we should defer to the charismatic leader, say a new Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, or John Anderson?

  • Re the man who asked the health insurance question:

    If he is disabled he should qualify for Social Security disability, which
    comes with Medicare. Of course that doesn’t pay his wife’s health insurance
    bills. If she is 62 she could apply for early retirement, which also comes
    with Medicare. Not that the system ain’t broken.

  • Biden’s answer on Sago was curt, but it was an answer (he empathizes like crazy as a widower himself, and he’d make the Sago recommendations law) and there’s not much more you can say in the 30-second soundbite format of these “debates.” He did express regret on Keith Olbermann’s show Wednesday night.

    • Comments are closed.