The Last Democratic Debate

I watched the debate last night and I wasn't particularly impressed. Clinton needed to win and didn't. Obama did just fine and in fact kept on with the same messages and calm tone he's had since the beginning of the campaign, that comes across as genuine and avoids her image of being tactical or desperate. Here's a transcript of the debate. Sorry about the following, it rambles a bit.

I agree with digby that we have to figure out How Do We Defeat Tim Russert?. "Can someone please explain to me how that can possibly happen until something is done about the reprehensible political press? From tax returns to Farrakhan to footage shown by "mistake" to the endless, trivial, gotcha bullshit, this debate spectacle tonight was a classic demonstration of what people really hate about politics. It isn't actually the candidates who can at least on occasion be substantive and serious. The problem is Tim Russert and all his petty, shallow acolytes who spend all their time reading Drudge and breathlessly reporting every tabloid tidbit and sexy rumor and seeking out minor inconsistencies from years past in lieu of doing any real work."

The questions started out being more about the campaign than about the issues. Williams started by asking about her difference in tone then about a picture of Obama sent out by Drudge. Somehow Obama managed to turn that into a long back and forth on health care policy. Clinton kept responding, loudly and I think kept repeating the same things. There is a difference in their plans and I think Obama is right that it's minor. At least he described them so we could make up our minds, she started saying his plan was like making Medicare not mandatory, which as Obama pointed out, it's not.

Williams then asked about NAFTA and Clinton complained about getting the first question all the time and brought up Saturday Night Live. She then went on for 3 full minutes about it saying she always opposed it, though while first lady she didn't have a public position. Obama says that when she ran for Senator she said NAFTA had been good for NY.

Russert then gave a number of quotes by Clinton from the 90s saying it was good. He then said "In the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: If you don't like NAFTA and what's it's done we can get out of it in six months. The president can say to Canada and Mexico we are out, this has not been a good agreement. Will you as president say we are out of NAFTA in six months". Is this a stupid question or what? We're going to skip negotiations entirely and even elections and have candidates remove us from NAFTA? Clinton did well saying "No, I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it." which is the obvious answer. He then pulled up a quote from her in 2004 saying NAFTA had on balance been good for NY and America and that she was now changing her mind. She then said that's not my whole record and that she has a detailed plan to fix NAFTA.

Russert then repeats "Let me button this up. Absent the changes you're suggesting you're willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months". He then turns to Obama, has a quote calling him ambivalent on NAFTA and asks "will you as president say to Canada and Mexico this has not worked for us, we are out?" It's as if international negotiates are held by 4 year olds. Oh yeah, that's Bush's policies.

So Obama then talks about how globalization is good but we should be allowing our workers to compete fairly. Russert says "Senator two journalists here in Ohio wrote a piece called Business as Usual which is very well known, suggesting that it wasn't trade or manufacturing jobs that were being lost because of it but rather business as usual, lack of patents, lack of innovation, lack of investment, 70% of the PhDs in biology and chemistry leaving the state. The fact is exports now have the highest share of our national income as ever, Ohio ranks 4th in terms of exports to Canada and Mexico. Are you sure this has not been better for Ohio as you suggested." So he does the bait and switch. Ask a stupid yes/no question and then give lots of facts to show the answer as wrong. Of course, Obama's answer wasn't wrong.

Russert then asked Clinton about her economic plan. She's said she'll create 5 million new jobs in 10 years. He then points out that in 2000 in her Senate run she said she'd create 200,000 new jobs in upstate NY but there had been a net loss of 30,000 and she's since said she might have been a little exuberant. "Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5,000,000 jobs might be a little exuberant?" Again, what a stupid question. She did well saying she thought Al Gore would be president.

Williams asked "Senator Obama, yesterday Senator Clinton gave a speech on foreign policy and I'm going to read you a quote from it. Quote, "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many." Some of the comments in the speech were more pointed. The senator has compared your foreign policy expertise to that of George W. Bush at the same period. Provided you could be going into a general election against a Republican with vast foreign policy expertise and credibility on national security, how were her comments about you unfair?" Isn't this just saying "please respond to your opponents statements"?

Williams then asked Clinton "Well, Senator Clinton, in the last debate you seemed to take a pass on the question of whether or not Senator Obama was qualified to be commander in chief. Is your contention in this latest speech that America would somehow be taking a chance on Senator Obama as commander in chief?" She started by saying "Well, I have put forth my extensive experience in foreign policy, you know, helping to support the peace process in Northern Ireland, negotiating to open borders so that refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing would be safe, going to Beijing and standing up for women's rights as human rights and so much else." Unfortunately in these forums there's no fact checking. Did Hillary really negotiate peace in Northern Ireland? The answer is no. She went on about Obama "So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn't just a speech but it was actually action". "She made two visits by herself to the province, in May 1999, when she was the keynote speaker to a women's conference, and a 12-hour trip in October 1997, when she gave a lecture at the University of Ulster."

Clinton then said "And on a number of other issues, I just believe that, you know, as Senator Obama said, yes, last summer he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take. I have long advocated a much tougher approach to Musharraf and to Pakistan, and have pushed the White House to do that." That's really just amazing. I remember the debate she's referring to and Obama's response last night was dead on. "With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we -- and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official." She's losing and these are the attacks she comes up with?

Russert then asked one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard: "Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You both have said you'd keep a residual force there to protect our embassy, to seek out al Qaeda, to neutralize Iran. If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly? You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. Get out now. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. Go home now." Will you leave?" Both answer that Iraq is sovereign and in that scenario you leave. But then Russert does his same old shtick and follows up to trap them: "If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?" Clinton then has balls to say "You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals" and Russert actually says "But this is reality". It is? Iraq threw us out, we left and al Qaeda resurged? Clinton very rightfully pointed out "No -- well, it isn't reality. You're -- you're -- you're making lots of different hypothetical assessments."

Williams then mistakenly showed a clip of Clinton mocking Obama saying light will reign down from the sky and a celestial choir will sing. Williams question was "That was Senator Clinton. But since we played that tape, albeit in error, for this segment, how did you take that?" Now that's probing. Maybe it was the wrong clip, but they clearly intended to show that clip at some point. Then they showed a clip of Obama saying she can't claim credit just for the good things from Bill Clinton's term. Williams asked "Now, Senator Obama, you can react to it and whatever you wanted to react to from earlier, but I've been wanting to ask you about this assertion that Senator Clinton has somehow cast herself as co-president." Am I the only one that remembers Bill Clinton campaigning and saying Hillary was really strong and by voting for him you get two-for-one? And of course the first thing she did was health care which didn't turn out very well.

Russert then asked both about keeping their word about taking pubic financing and releasing tax returns. It just seemed like badgering and it also was another common Russert pattern. Ask an annoying question, the candidate ducks, he asks the same question again in a strong tone and the candidate ducks again and then he moves on. "Repeat twice Russert" seems like a reasonable nickname.

Then he went on about Farrakhan's support for Obama and the difference between reject and denounce. And of course Obama was right that denounce is the right word. Is this what we've come to as far as our political debates: "Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."

Williams then asked "The National Journal rates your voting record as more liberal than that of Ted Kennedy. In a general election, going up against a Republican Party, looking for converts, Republicans, independents, how can you run with a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy?" Obama then described the ratings as "silly" and explained the two votes that led to the report.

What was impressive about both candidates was that they had the facts to back up positions even on stupid questions. The next question from Russert about the new handpicked Russian president. He wanted to know what each candidate knew of him. it turns out not much and I'm ok with that, there isn't much they need to know about him at this point. He's not president yet and neither is Clinton or Obama.

So overall I found Russerts questions tactically annoying and Williams' as light weight softballs about quotes from the campaign trail. The result of this debate is that both candidates looked better than both questioners and that's kinda useless to me.