I watch presidential debates — so you don’t have to

Last night’s debate of Democratic presidential candidates was the third of the campaign, and though it was dedicated largely to domestic issues and challenges facing the African-American community — there were no questions, for example, about the war in Iraq — it was probably the most substantive of the three.

It was the first debate in which education was discussed in any detail, it was the first debate to talk about AIDS policy, it was the first to address mandatory minimums, the war on drugs, and flaws in the criminal justice system. The first two debates had eye-rolling questions about an official U.S. language and a series of raise-your-hand inquiries, but this debate, held at the historically-black Howard University in DC, skipped the nonsense.

It was also unfailingly fair. There were eight questions, and each of the eight candidates got to respond to each one. With eight questions and eight candidates, they each got a turn going first. In previous debates, top-tier candidates tended to get more time; last night, equality reigned. I’m sure the candidates appreciated it.

As for “winners” and “losers,” I suspect this debate didn’t shake up the race too much, though a question about AIDS policy turned out to be the highlight of the night. NPR’s Michel Martin asked the candidates, “[W]hat is the plan to stop and to protect these young people from this scourge?” After several candidates gave a variety of good answers, Hillary Clinton said:

CLINTON: You know, it is hard to disagree with anything that has been said, but let me just put this in perspective. If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country. (Cheers, applause.)

The applause was so enthusiastic, it pretty much made HRC the “winner” of the night. I’d add, however, that Joe Biden immediately followed Clinton, and suggested the key to combating AIDS is prevention: “I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS. There’s no shame in being tested for AIDS. It’s an important thing.”

Obama shot Biden a tough glare, Al Sharpton looked disgusted, and the audience laughed nervously. When Biden was done with his answers, Obama interjected:

OBAMA: Tavis, Tavis, Tavis, I just got to make clear — I got tested with Michelle. (Laughter, applause.) When we were in Kenya in Africa. So I don’t want any confusion here about what’s going on. (Applause continues.)

It made Obama the debate’s other winner.

Other random observations from my notes:

* Clinton was excellent in showing “toughness” on Darfur policy.

* It must have been exceedingly hot on the stage; most of the candidates were sweating profusely.

* Obama was way more relaxed than he was in the first two debates.

* Dodd always seems to get screwed in these debates; last night he was on the far-right flank of the stage and he had to follow Gravel.

* Speaking of Gravel, he concluded the debate by insisting that the other candidates do not have “moral judgment,” and they have “proven it by the simple fact of what they’ve done.” Time to seriously consider whether to keep inviting this guy to the debates.

* Digby’s right: all the Dem candidates “are so much better than the non-sequitor dribbling absurdists on the Republican side that every time I see them I feel a little bit better about the future.”

* And Chris Cillizza had an interesting take on the broader Clinton-Obama dynamic.

Clinton has repeatedly emphasized what she has worked to accomplish while in the Senate. On HIV, Hurricane Katrina recovery and several other issues, Clinton has made sure the audience at Howard and watching on television knows she has been there and done that. It’s no surprise as Clinton’s strongest point over Obama is her experience versus his inexperience.

Obama, on the other hand, has sought to paint nearly every question in broad terms — focusing on the big challenges that face the country. Obama has “the vision thing” down pat, and the more he can focus the debate on his plans to fundamentally change the political debate and dynamic in the country, the better he does.

What’d you think?

I won’t vote for Billary because of Nafta, but now I know I won’t vote for Obama so that leaves Edwards or even Kucinich as viable in my mind. The reason I made up my mind and would not vote for Obama is because he is against impeaching Bush or Cheney. He says we should “vote the bums out.” Maybe I’m mistaken, but I was under the impression that a president couldn’t run again after his second term and that neither one of those two criminals was even running. I thought the best thing that could happen is impeaching FrankenBush and Dicktator Cheney so they could be held accountable for their crimes and not do any more damage. Even if the Senate does not vote to impeach, it will be in the history books that we tried. We can still try them later for crimes after they are out of office. The Hague might even take a whack at them. I think Obama has a right to explain his reason for his opinion. Was it campaign contributions or lack of backbone?

  • Based on her performance last night, I am now projecting Hillary the winner of the 2008 presidential election. The response from the sisters in the crowd to her AIDS answer was electric. Here answer on Darfur was so forceful and spot-on, it made the other candidates appear retarded in comparison. She definitely broke away from the pack last night. I think she might be more Bill than Bill, or rather Bill we may discover was a pale copy of Hillary all along. Hot Damn!!

  • For the record, I watched the debate too, and saw Billary glaring at Kucinich when he said he would immediately cancel NAFTA. Thank you PBS for having a camera at the end of the stage.

  • I do not believe Barack’s comments regarding his aids test made him a second winner. Biden’s point was that there is no shame in testing. The shame is in not testing if there is cause for concern. Obama negated that valid point by jumping to his own defense…unnecessary if there is no shame in testing. This fear of being thought homosexual or promiscuous is the power hiv/aids has over our country.

  • Gravel is right. A little thought to his recent TV spot, from a Northwestern tradition – have you ever been so pissed off you couldn’t speak? Just stand there in contempt and disgust, look, shake you head, at a complete loss. W.T.F.!?

    If this is the best the dems have to offer, we are well and truly screwed.

  • I think debates should have clear “you have to have raised this amount of money to participate” limits. Per Open Secrets, Gravel has raised a whopping $15K through 3/31. I think if you haven’t raised $500K by 3/31, you shouldn’t be invited to any debates. That would also knock out Kucinich. By not declaring these things ahead of time, dropping candidates appears arbitrary when it is really in the best interest of the party. BTW, if the Republicans had a $500K requirement, Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore wouldn’t get invited to their debates.

  • “If this is the best the dems have to offer, we are well and truly screwed.”

    Now that is an entirely unfair, erroneous and incompetent statement if I have ever heard one. What is true and accurate is that we are and have been “truly screwed” by the last seven years of Cheney/Bush and the GOP/Conservative Congressional enabling of those two traitorious jackasses. I have absolutely no doubt that if any of these 8 Dem candidates had been president for the past 7 years this country would be in far better shape across the board and in all areas (foreign, domestic, fiscal, national security) than it is now. Only a fool or someone with an IQ under 40 cannot see this.

    That said, I was happy with the performance of most of the candidates. I am not a Clinton fan, but she provided some top shelf answers and actually sounded sincere in giving those answers. And kudos to Howard U for putting on what is probably the best run and most informative and substantive debate thus far.

  • I don’t like Clinton’s corporate connectiveness…but must admit she was vrbally impressive last night.

    O’Bama is getting better but still needs more practice at stumping.

    John Edwards has a deep grasp of the problems that underlie the surface problems and showed it. I rather love him, but love Elizabeth, his wife, even more.

    Kucinich and Gravel can cut to the bone on some topics and dare to touch the growing Corporatism problems.

    Response to #6 above: To make participation in a presidential forum a matter of how much corporate money one raises is sooo buying in to the whole neocon perspective….and is at the root of what is wrong with our system in the first place. Wealth does Not = Worth. Without Campaign finance reform we will not change our present Corporate ober allus course.

  • RE #6, considering the now way-too-early overly long period that now constitutes the presidential campaign season, I have no problem with Kucinich and Gravel being in the debates this early in the game, as long as they are adding substance to the conversation (which at this point I think they are, Gravel’s ‘morals’ lecture aside). However, if we get to October/November or so and their poll numbers have not improved over a fixed percentage (or some other number that might make sense) thought should be given to whether they and anyone else similarly situated should be weeded out of the debates.

  • I’m a gay man and Obama’s response just got him crossed off my list. That and his very public religiosity. Hilary has never been a possibility for me–I don’t vote for Repuglicans. That leaves Edwards (also a public prayer) and my best hope Al Gore.

  • I have to differ with you, CB, on Clinton’s pandering “white women” comment. While tragic, HIV infection is not something that strikes the unsuspecting, like breast cancer. We all know how it is acquired today and it is easily avoidable. (It is also treatable, although not curable). So, like with lung cancer from smoking, which plenty of white women are getting by the way, society can save its “outrage” for the gazillion other injustices and catastrophes we face as human beings. AIDS is devastating African and some Asian countries but it is not a big factor here and, truth be told, is not anywhere as pressing for blacks as health care in general, economic opportunity, education etc etc (gee, those issues are much the same for white women too).

  • The reason I made up my mind and would not vote for Obama is because he is against impeaching Bush or Cheney. -tko

    You’re going to discount a candidate because he doesn’t want to waste time and money? You know they don’t have the votes in either house. Bush could eat a baby on national television and most of the GOP thugs would still support him.

    I’d rather them focus on what they can accomplish instead of tilting at windmills. Impeaching them now would be nothing short of theater and I’ve had enough theater over the last six years.

    Bring on the substance.

  • Although I am all for impeachment, and think it is something that can be accomplished, basing a vote on one single issue is unrealistic, selfish and irrational. Just look at those who vote only on the candidates views on the issue of abortion. That said, there may be room for that sort of thing in the primary (not that it is suggested), but whoever is the Dem nominee will get my vote in the general election, regardless of what I think is his or her penchant for cozzying up to corporates, against impeachment, always or not always against the Iraq war, etc.

  • Obama’s unneeded response to Biden’s statement about being tested for AIDS just made him sound homophobic.

  • I have to agree with Evergreen, one of Obama’s biggest advantages is he’s so successful without being the money candidate. He doesn’t have much experience but isn’t necessarily a bad thing because he doesn’t have a lot of lobbyist “buddies” either.

    One of the most impressive things about him was he went to poor communities and demanded they donate to his campaign, because that invests him in them and not big monied interests.

    Hillary’s a good candidate too, and I’d vote for her, but I think that’s what puts Obama miles ahead of her in my book, and a lot of progressives’.

    And what’s the deal with Biden always putting his foot in his mouth? It looks like he feels the need to show he’s not a racist or something.

    Still, overall, it’s a far cry from the GOP list. It’s a shame we can only pick one (or two,) which I don’t think many Republicans can say about their field of candidates.

  • I’m concerned about Biden; I think he’s a problem.

    I disagree with Frak. I think you still have to sympathize with people who get AIDS, just as much as you have to sympathize with people who are poor. Sure, andybody from anywhere could get scholarships or get govt. aid to go to school, happen to give all the right answers on their college physics exams, and become a famous scientist who’s affluent and has a great job- it’s possible- but we don’t expect everyone to do that because it’s really, um, not possible. Being a liberal is about recognizing that some people are weaker than others and you don’t punish (oppress) them for it, rather, you make it as easy as possible for even the weak members of society to find something productive they can do and not break the rules, so only the people who really refuse to help and get along no matter what end up without opportunities and in prison. It’s the same with AIDS and other diseases. People are smart enough so most anyone doesn’t do some things that are dangerous, but there are other contexts where the cultural influence is such that people still engage in risk-taking behavior and if all it takes is a little more education and a little more reminding to get people to modify those behaviors, it’s really conservative and elitist to say “F*** you, you brought it on yourself to those people” and leave em to their fate, while those of us who were raised in more protected environments, with more self-esteem and less prospective sex-partners around who may have been exposed to AIDS, since people with the risk factors (prison, intravenous drug use, etc.) are not as common in our social demographic/neighborhood, can just be smug about how we don’t get AIDS because of how smart (we think) we are (not just because of how we are raised / who we grew up around- or that’s the conceit, isn’t it?).

  • Obama needed to answer when Biden mentioned his AIDS test. The crowd expected him to.

    His explanation was totally valid and charming.

  • Swan, I’m not saying that people who have AIDS don’t deserve sympathy or that they don’t lack self esteem etc, etc–I’m saying that Clinton’s expressed “outrage” and “white women” comment was unwarranted, inappropriate, and over the top. Given the issues we face in this country, particularly those in the community she was addressing, it was way-off-the-mark, victim pandering. Poor people on Medicaid, black or white, can get AIDS drugs. Anyone, black or white, who doesn’t quallify and has no insurance is in the same boat. Literally every one knows the facts around HIV transmission, just as we know what smoking can do, yet people continue to put themselves at risk. What more can be done by the government for blacks at risk that would have been done for white women? There are some problems that need to be addressed that are, nevertheless, not outrageous or racially based. HIV is not sickle-cell anemia.

  • Comment #4*******exactly. comment #5*******WTF. superman left the building. comment #13. Just say no to AIDS huh?…if it were as prevalent when you were a kid as it is now then unless you were a virgin it was only by the grace of god you don’t have it.

    Not for standing up and defending the constitution because it just takes too much time and energy? It’s just too inconvenient? Forget about all the dead people, impeachment won’t bring them back. Just wait long enough and the murderers/torturers will leave. Why bother because it won’t be successful anyway?

    So, you’re a republican, and not just another cowering oppressed democratic victim who’s been raped but is too afraid to have the rapist arrested. Who cares about Justice. It’s just too much effort. Murder…forget about it. Don’t listen to the voting public…when you already know what’s best for them.

    Obama reminds me of another “talking head”. Always saying what’s good to hear. Would make an excellent SoS.

    Cancel NAFTA yet nobody can say the word “tariff” Has HRC changed her mind on NAFTA and single payer national health care?
    What about education? Free anybody? Campaign finance reform or any answer that doesn’t begin with, “we should …”
    How about Media ownership and the fairness doctrine? Rebuilding the DoJ? Habeus Corpus?
    I’m not any closer to a choice but so far Gore is my choice then Kucinich . 2nd to the war came ending government corruption as the major issues of ’06 elections. Only 2 candidates are unafraid to address the issue of corruption, the others just ignore it.

  • “What about education?”

    I think this topic was addressed during the debate, and more than a few good* answers were provided.

    *As good as answers can be given considering one has 60 seconds, more or less, to provide one.

  • Not for standing up and defending the constitution because it just takes too much time and energy? It’s just too inconvenient? Forget about all the dead people, impeachment won’t bring them back. Just wait long enough and the murderers/torturers will leave. Why bother because it won’t be successful anyway? -bjobotts

    That’s an oversimplification of the situation. I’ve yet to see any realistic play for impeachment. Do I like it? No. Do I wish it was different? Hell yeah, but that doesn’t change the fact that if they pursued it at this moment it would waste time and money that could be spent in other ways. If they impeach and ultimately (and assuredly) are unsuccessful then what have they done? How does that help the troops in Iraq or the citizens of the country? Worse, a failed impeachment lends validity to the trespasses of this criminal administration.

    Instead, the Democrats are focused on what they can do by cutting funding and establishing goals and time lines. Impeachment isn’t the only solution to this problem, and I believe that they are pursuing (although not as aggressively as I’d like) better, more viable way.

    I’d like nothing more for every member of this administration to spend the rest of their days in jail for their crimes, but even more so, I want the Democrats to remain grounded in reality with both feet firmly planted on the ground and right now impeachment is just not realistic.

  • bjobotts, check your reading comprehension on comments #13 and #20. It’s not “just say no to AIDS”–it’s that AIDS is not a racial issue that would be addressed differently if it affected “white women.”

  • Comments are closed.