I read debate transcripts, so you don’t have to

December 5, 2007

Ordinarily, Democratic presidential candidate debates are a pretty big deal, aired on national television for a fairly big audience. Yesterday in Iowa, however, the Dems got together for an NPR debate, without podiums, cameras, audiences, and as it turns out, rhetorical fireworks.

The New York Daily News noted that this was the first face-off since Hillary Clinton “launched a scorched-earth campaign” against Barack Obama, so some expected a “wrestling-cage match.” This was, however, NPR: “Instead, they had a soothing, civilized chat about policy.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The event covered three subjects — Iran, immigration, and China — and the discussion on Iran policy, in particular, was pretty significant. Clinton was put on the defensive fairly early on for her support for the Kyl-Lieberman measure a couple of months ago.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) accused her of failing to “stand up” to President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

“I just want to be clear to the listeners that we have a real division here,” Edwards said. “I mean, among the Democratic candidates, there’s only one that voted for this resolution. And that is exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted.”

Edwards said the resolution was not a form of diplomacy, as Clinton has suggested, but could rather be used as a basis to go to war.

Clinton defended the vote, saying the resolution has already yielded progress.

“I understand politics and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far,” Clinton said. “In fact, having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we’ve actually seen some changes in their behavior. There is absolutely no basis for a rush to war, which I oppose and have opposed for two years.”

Joe Biden, who usually doesn’t do too much to antagonize Clinton directly, rejected her argument about the resolution helping force a change in Iran: “There’s no evidence – none, zero – that this declaration caused any change in action on the part of the Iranian government.”

But Clinton did not spend the entire debate on the defensive.

She certainly tried to give as good as she got.

At the same time, Clinton took shots at both Edwards and Obama, saying they, too, had once said they believed that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. “You know, earlier this year, Senator Edwards told an audience in Israel that the nuclear threat from Iran was the greatest threat to our generation,” Clinton said. “Back in 2004, Senator Obama told the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he would even consider nuke — surgical strikes by missiles to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity,” she continued. “So there was a very broadly based belief that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon.”

Obama called Clinton’s remark “a little misleading” because he said he had been describing what he would do if Iran obtained weapons rather than assuming that they had. Obama was absent from the Senate vote on the Iran resolution.

Perhaps the most informative question came when the moderator raised the issue of improving the nation’s standing in the Muslim world.

EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I think that what’s driving this belief about America in the Muslim community around the world is the bullying, selfish, abusive behavior of George Bush and this administration…. We need to take serious steps to demonstrate that America is actually worthy of leadership.

OBAMA: Well, I think John’s point is right, but I want to broaden it a little bit. Listen to the Republican candidates’ debates and how they frame this issue. And if you are a Muslim overseas, listening to Rudy Giuliani say, they are coming here to try to kill you, which is the tenor of many of the speeches that are delivered by the Republican candidates, you would get an impression that they are not interested in talking and resolving issues peacefully. Now, what we need to do is we need to close Guantanamo. We need to restore habeas corpus. We need to send a strong signal that we are going to talk directly to, not just our friends, but also to our enemies.

DODD: Well, this is long-standing. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we had — there were, I think, classified ads in the Washington Post trying to find if there was anyone in the region who spoke Arabic. This has been a vacuum for a long time, in terms of our relationship with the Muslim world — the 22 countries in the world that are Muslim nations. We’ve been, basically, AWOL dealing with these nations here and that has bred a lack of understanding and appreciation — the point I think that Barack was trying to make here.

KUCINICH: To answer your question directly, we need to reach out to Muslim nations and to tell them America is taking a different direction. No more unilateralism, preemption, first strike. We’re going to — our policy will be strength through peace. As the one up here who not only voted against, but voted 100 percent of the time against funding the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq was used to create a wedge between the United States and Islam.

When this came up at the GOP debate last week, Giuliani, among others, talked about improving our image by “staying on the offensive” in combatting terrorism. The Dems’ answers were far more coherent.

Other random tidbits:

* Clinton at one point referred to “the first Clinton administration.” Cute.

* Edwards vowed not to buy toys from China for his children this Christmas. Dodd added, “I’m buying Iowa toys,” adding that his young kids are “going to eat Iowa food.”

* Bill Richardson was attending a funeral and did not participate.

* During each of the previous Democratic debates, the Republican National Committee would issue assorted attack emails to the media about remarks from Hillary Clinton. Yesterday, about midway through the debate, the RNC attacked Obama over his intention to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. It was the RNC’s first debate attack against the Illinois senator, suggesting that even Republicans are starting to wonder who the Democratic nominee will be.

So, did anyone hear the debate? Any reactions?

I heard it in bits and pieces, as the streaming broadcast kept fading in and out for minutes at a time.

I really like the voice-only format. It was like being tuned into a conversation rather than a campaign, though of course each speaker occasionally referred to his/her campaign position on a question. When they didn’t specifically state, “This is my position,” the comments seemed more honest and straightforward. It didn’t have the feeling of a debate but rather a group of people brainstorming in response to questions, agreeing or disagreeing. A few jabs at each other but not many.

I wish there were more question/answer sessions like this one.

  • I heard most of it. It was, in fact, a “civilized denbate about policy” – and quite refreshing. No msm blowhards bloviating, no Russert gotchas. Just smart questions posed by able journalists to knowledgeable candidates with sufficient time allowed for substantive responses. And I suspect the DODD clock would show that reasonable time was given to each of the candidates.

    BTW, they had all heard about the Iran NIE.

  • Is Clinton this stupid? Kyl-Lieberman states the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. Bush has the power to attack any terrorist org. as he see’s fit. Why can’t she see this? Is she going to come out and say Iran stoped it’s nuke program because of Kyl-Lieberman? If the name of the resolution didn’t tip you off to what it’s about. Kyl-Lieberman the moderates they are.

  • I heard a chunk of the China discussion over lunch break yesterday and was definitely impressed by the audio-only format. It was a real debate instead of the posing, the theatrics, and the spin that dominates the TV format. I would really like NPR to repeat this debate style on other issues: environment, the role of the U.N., science, education, labor.

  • I didn’t hear it, so I’m glad to have your highlights.

    I’ll always remember, back in grad school (late ‘sixties), watching a speech by Hubert Humphrey on TeeVee. Then later, in someone’s car, hearing that same speech on the radio. The difference was night-and-day. “Did he say that? and that? and that?”

    I came to realize that TeeVee uses only a small part of your brain. The occipital lobe, about the size of a dime, shared with most other animals. Its primary function is to enable us to quickly make flight-flight decisions and then move on (i.e., forget). Speech-thought, by contrast, uses the entire front and upper half of your brain.

    No wonder the corporate world’s favorite instrument of control is the boob tube.

  • Iowa toys? They making action figures out of corn-husks now? Earth to Dodd—how about pushing “American” toys? Maybe a plug here and there in favor of rekindling the awesome might of American industry by invoking the health, safety, and welfare of all the world’s children—American or otherwise—who are currently subjected to the toxicity of a corrupt corporatism that places cash intake above consumer safety.

    If you poison the consumer, then that consumer will not buy more stuff in the future. If you protect the consumer, they be able to buy more stuff.

    On another point, radio is a nice medium. You can’t throw red meat to a microphone….

  • Astrogeek

    I’d like to see NPR repeat this discussion style debate, too, several times, but I’d like to see them ask some really meaty questions about restoring America to its Constitutional basis first. Off the top of my head, I think we’d hear some interesting answers to questions about

    Executive privilege

    Signing statements

    Surveilling Americans without warrants

    Adhering to the Geneva Conventions and American statutes pertaining to war crimes and torture

    Habeus corpus

    Congress’s Constitutional responsibility for declaring war

    Under what conditions is impeachment of a president or vice president required (wonder what Hillary would say?)

    Faith-based governmental programs

    THEN other concerns that you mentioned, probably climate change primary, but energy right up there with it.

  • I think the best thing about it was the lack of an audience cheering, booing, etc.

    The only thing worse than audiences trying to take part in the debate are the moronic moderators we usually get.

    Good job overall, NPR.

  • “The first Clinton administration.” All the reason one needs not to vote for Triangulatin’ Tilly. Constitutional Republics do not do well with 25 years of voting for people with one of two surnames.

    Beyond that, we need a Democrat in the White House. Which hasn’t happened since Jimmy Carter left office.

  • anney,

    I agree those would be interesting questions, especially the impeachment question.

    I would hope all of the candidates would state that we’d return to a rational administration based on the Constitution if they were elected. But I imagine we’d hear “Bush is evil” from one candidate and the others would voice their support. It wouldn’t provide any difference between the candidates. I wouldn’t find that as interesting as their individual stances on education or environmental that might shed some light on who I agree with more.

  • Bill Richardson was attending a funeral and did not participate.

    It seems that Bill Richardson is working on his vice presidential skills.

  • Gravel left out because he doesn’t raise enough money, Dennis about to drop out…

    DLC hangs its “Mission Accomplished” banner outside HQ in 5… 4… 3…

  • If I understand what I heard of the NPR debate correctly, Dodd’s follow-up to Edwards saying he would not buy Chinese-made toys for his kids for Xmas this year was made in jest. He mentioned Iowa over and over in his answer, and all the other candidates were laughing in a “we know that Iowa is all we eat, sleep, and drink these days” kind of way. I seriously doubt Dodd was being literal- it was a pretty funny remark. I don’t see how a transcript could have captured the wry laughter of the whole group, so it would have been easy for me to think he was being serious if I’d only read the transcript.

    • Comments are closed.