-
sponsorship
Usually, it’s the process questions that produce sparks at
debates. Networks rely on questions about flag pins, VP picks, and radical
hippie friends, because they reveal differences in character rather than
policy. So in a primary like this one, where there aren’t many discernible policy
differences (besides social security payroll taxes, obviously), process
questions are the choice du jour if you want some made-for-TV fireworks.
The problem is, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton went for the bait. Unsurprisingly, both
candidates said the other could beat John McCain. Both said the Democratic Party
would unite around the nominee. Both delivered stump-speech pitches to
hypothetical superdelegates at the end of the debate.
Even when things had the potential to get dicey, they simmered down
quickly. Obama explained away his
“bitter” remarks, and Clinton said
she merely called his comments elitist—not Obama himself. Clinton
started to get huffy puffy about Rev. Wright, but Obama reiterated the same
defense that helped him wriggle out of the ordeal in the first place. On Clinton’s
Bosnia misspeak,
Obama was somnambulant while he hoped Clinton
tripped herself up trying to explain the gaffe away.
But after the first hour, ABC seemed to run out of process questions and had
to turn to (sigh) policy. It wasn’t until 9:04 p.m. that a question was asked about the economy—the
issue that half of all Pennsylvanians care about most (PDF). Once
we finally got around to hashing out the issues, we lingered on an obscure
stipulation involving old people, tax ceilings, and a bunch of stuff the
American people—and, to be honest, your humble blogger—doesn’t fully
understand. Iraq
was barely touched, and when it was, neither moderator pushed Obama on Samantha
Power’s comments that he wouldn’t actually pull out troops if the generals told
him not to. Fringe(ish) issues like gun control and affirmative action were raised instead of the heartier (and, frankly, more pressing) issues mentioned above. The
climate crisis once again took a back seat, even though a question was asked
on rising gas prices. Last time we checked, they’re sort of intertwined.
ABC should have realized its mistake before Charlie and
George sat down in front of those wooden lecterns. As they reminded us, it’s
been five weeks since the last primaries, six since the last debate. Since
then, all we’ve heard are process stories—Rev. Wright,
Bosnia, and small-town
embitterment. Those issues were hashed out beyond the debate floor, and it was
time to turn the attention back to policy. Debate after debate, the candidates
have shown they’re more comfortable debating policy than process. The moderators should have followed suit. Sure,
policy questions don't lead to fireworks—but
at least you don't get duds like tonight.
-
sponsorship
Clinton’s getting all the laughs tonight. All two of them.
In an answer about the D.C. gun ban, she refers to Dick Cheney as “a fourth branch [of government] all to himself,” which gets yuks. Earlier, she made a crack about how it would be nice if the Republicans decided to not run a candidate at all.
Next to Sleepy over there, she’s killing.
-
sponsorship
It’s more than an hour into the debate, and finally we get a question that’s not about a pastor, a surrogate, a gaffe, or a flag pin.
On Iraq: George and Charlie ask if Clinton would really pull out of Iraq even if military commanders said no. Her answer: Yes she would. Would Obama pull out no matter what after 16 months, as he has said? Yes he would, but he’d consult the brass first.
On Iran: Clinton knocks Obama for saying he would meet with Ahmadinejad, who today questioned whether 9/11 really happened, she says.
On taxes: You have to love the language of tax hikes. Clinton wouldn’t raise taxes for people with income above $200,000—she’d “let” them “go back” to what they were in the 1990s. Kind of like how Mitt Romney never raised taxes in Massachusetts , he just closed tax loopholes.
Obama says he would cut taxes for people with income under $75,000. I feel like every question should be a two-parter, with the second part being, ... and how would you pay for it?
-
sponsorship
They approach the electability question sideways, via Obama’s association with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers.
Clinton brings up the fact that Obama sat on a corporate board with Ayers, who she says refused to repent for the bombs he once planted—a statement she was says “deeply hurtful to people in New York” on 9/11 and after. She expands this into an argument that’s become one of my favorite campaign tropes: That Obama’s shortcomings make him vulnerable not to her attacks, but to those of Republicans in the fall. Evan Bayh said a similar thing about his “bitter” comment. Who knows what those dirty Republicans will do with this gaffe?
This time, Obama has a comeback: President Clinton pardoned two members of the Weather Underground.
-
sponsorship
Charlie Gibson peels Obama's Rev. Jeremiah Wright scab and asks Obama why he rescinded an invitation for Wright to attend his announcement speech in February 2007, yet did not distance himself from Wright publicly. Obama responds by saying that Wright's comments in Rolling Stone prompted the disinvite, and that he was still unaware of the kind of talk that ended up on YouTube.
UPDATE 9:26 p.m: Originally, I had written that the story was posted on Feb. 22, so Obama's timing was off. I was incorrect. The story in question appeared in the Feb. 22 issue, and therefore was published weeks before. I've left the text I originally wrote in strikethrough below.
Here's the problem: From what we can tell, Reverend Wright's quotes showed up in Rolling Stone on February 22--12 days after Obama announced he was running for president. If that's the case, then Obama's clock is off. The only explanation is that Obama and company found out RS was going to run with a piece that questioned Obama's church. If that's true, then Obama's move was a shrewd one, as it distanced himself before the comments blew up and became an issue. But it still doesn't explain why he didn't do the same permanently, so the Rev. Wright flap that we've all become accustomed to could never take place.
Two choice cuts from what Wright was quoted as saying in the piece that ran on was in the Feb. 22 issue:
Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!
We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. ... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. ... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!
We're not at the debate, so we can't ask Axelrod and company about this in the spin room after the debate. Perhaps some of our blogger pals in Philly can help clarify the anachronism.
-
sponsorship
We hear a video question from a good person of Pennsylvania named Tom, who says Clinton lost his vote because of her misleading Tuzla account. (This is like a greatest hits of the last seven weeks.)
Clinton responds: “I may be a lot of things, but I’m not dumb.” She described the incident in her book, she says, and more recently “said some things that just weren’t in keeping” with her original account. "Maybe I need to get more sleep, Tom." Never mind that she repeated the revisionist version over and over.
So really she's saying, I'm not dumb ... I'm calculating!
-
sponsorship
As expected, an early question about Bitterclingelitistgate.
Obama rails against the tendency in campaigns to “take one comment that wasn’t properly phrased and beat it to death.” As an example, he cites Clinton’s “baking cookies” line from the early ‘90s. Reversal!
Clinton responds calmly, unhurriedly, that whatever his intentions, Obama managed to offend a large number of people.
If that’s that, then Obama got off fairly easy.
ALSO: Obama sounds so tired. Looks like he's about to nod off midsentence. Maybe they should give him a pillow.
-
sponsorship
Gibson starts with a genius move. He asks, Why wouldn’t you pick each other as running mates? and throws it out to both candidates.
The silence, as the Hotline might say, was long enough you could knit a sweater.
Obama says it’s too premature to say. Clinton says the party is going to close ranks around the nominee no matter what happens. (Even though Obama hasn't crossed the commander-in-chief threshold, of course.) In other words: No comment.
-
sponsorship
Welcome to the National Constitutional Center in Philadelphia. The camera pans around the room. It’s tiny! Looks kind of like a Disney ride—one of those magic motion machines. Hopefully the seats rock back and forth and water squirts on the audience.
The set is a lot less flashy than CNN’s. The whole scene is pretty formal, down to Clinton’s conservative gray jacket. Clinton and Obama are both standing at lecterns, instead of the desk meeting we had at the other mano-a-manos.
Also, note the “We the people” banner in the background. Kind of like a Ron Paul ad.
-
sponsorship
It’s tempting to cast tonight’s Democratic debate—No. 21, for those counting—as an inevitable smackdown. Just look at what’s happened since the last debate: Jeremiah Wright, NAFTA, Austan Goolsbee, Samantha Power, the Bosnia sniper flap, and, most recently, Bitterclingelitistgate. But remember what happened last time we expected a bloodbath: The Los Angeles debate in January turned out to be remarkably civil. In fact, every one-on-one debate has been more tea party than sniper duel. Tonight could well be the same, with both candidates sticking to the issues and saving the attacks for the airwaves.
But Clinton can't afford to sit back. She’s winning the battle (Pennsylvania) but losing the war (the nomination). Here are a few ways she might be able to outmaneuver Obama:
Don’t be bitter: It’s becoming clear that whatever the long-term effects of Obama's “cling” thing, it’s not hurting him much in Pennsylvania or Indiana. (Plus, a recent national Gallup survey gave Obama his widest lead ever.) Nor have Clinton’s attempts to push the story gone over well. She therefore has a choice: Keep hammering Obama and risk looking desperate or let it go and risk everyone forgetting it ever happened. She’d be wise to choose the latter. Clinton has never won hearts and minds while on the attack—more often than not, her quips come off as cheap shots. (See her "change you can Xerox” remark.) She could luck out—Obama could say something to aggravate the elitism charge. But don’t count on it. He’ll be choosing his words with more care than usual. Better for Clinton to …
Focus on electability: To win the nomination, Clinton needs to convince superdelegates that Obama cannot beat McCain in the general election. That’s the only way they will override his pledged-delegate lead. Which is why, even if the moderators don’t mention electability, Clinton has to bring it up herself. That means hitting Obama on questions of character, like his iffy claim that he doesn’t take money from oil companies, or why he hasn’t released his tax returns from the late 1990s, or Rezko (again). It also means finding other ways to suggest he’s “out-of-touch” (shaky ground for Clinton, to be sure). She also needs to outgun him in the ineffable presidentiality department. That means not getting too riled.
Dominate on substance: Clinton is at her best when pummeling her opponent with lucid policy ideas, leaving him fumbling for a response. Tonight, that means nailing him on the economy and health care. The last two months have seen the maturation of the subprime-mortgage crisis, leading everyone from Alan Greenspan to Ben Bernanke to whisper the “R” word. Expect to hear a lot about stimulus packages, freezing home foreclosures, executive pay, and McCain’s one-eighty on “bailouts.” Clinton should tease out the differences in their economic plans—they’re both for government intervention, but Obama is slightly more cautious, while Clinton is aggressive. Health care is charted territory for Democratic debates, but Clinton has always shined. She’d be smart to steer the conversation health-ward.
Throw Bill under the bus: Or at the very least, do some serious distancing. Over the past weeks, Bill Clinton has managed to undermine his wife on the Colombia trade agreement (he’s for it), the China Olympics boycott (he opposes it), NAFTA (he signed it), and her Bosnia sniper flap (he resurrected it). Voters need to know that Bill will not have a voice in her administration. This is a hard case to make, given that her “experience” as first lady is a large part of her pitch. But for all his smarts, Bill has been a drag on Hillary. Saying “we disagree” isn’t enough. She needs to assure viewers that the next Clinton administration would not be a co-presidency.
Start to make amends: On the off-chance she doesn't win the nomination, Clinton is going to have a hell of a time backpedaling from her recent attacks. Tonight, in the blistering heat of the pre-Pennsylvania race, is her chance to turn on the charm. Lavish him with compliments, praise his campaign, heck, mention the Dream Ticket idea again. Just make it clear that the race isn't personal. In other words, leave room for a 2012 run.
-
sponsorship
A morning endorsement from Bruce Springsteen will help Barack Obama
dominate the news cycle heading into tonight's debate. That, coupled
with some new poll numbers and a newspaper endorsement, helps drag
Clinton's ship down by two points to a 10.4 percent chance of winning the nomination.
Barack
Obama may have E Street to thank if he ever lives on Pennsylvania
Avenue. Bruce Springsteen endorsed Obama today, the first
mega-celebrity to endorse since Oprah, Babs, and the gang in January.
While Obama could've used the Boss' backing before New Jersey's primary
on Feb. 5 (Obama lost by 10 points), today's timing actually works well
for Obama. Springsteen is a perfect emissary for the campaign in the
wake of Obama's "cling" comments in San Francisco. The Boss
acknowledges as much and writes in his endorsement
that "[w]hile these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have
been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and
vision." If Obama can coax Springsteen onto the trail in Pennsylvania,
that will start to nullify Clinton's and McCain's claims that he's an
elitist. The less traction Clinton gets on that issue, the more
desperate she looks. Desperate candidates don't become the nominee. ...
Read more at the Hillary Deathwatch.
-
sponsorship
Obama racks up yet another endorsement in the music primary,
this one from small town poet laureate Bruce Springsteen. On his Web site, the
Boss implicitly defends
Obama’s “bitter” comment:
At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama
through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While
these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the
context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his
excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from
discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial
justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of
our environment.
The Boss may have read Obama’s book and liked it, but he must
have missed the title: It’s Dreams From My Father.
It’s actually a common
mistake.
But you’d think the Obama campaign would catch it in the vetting process.
In fact, they’ve made the same error before. In
a press
release responding to a Los Angeles
Times piece about exaggerations in the partially fictionalized book, the
campaign mentions “Yvonne Lloyd, a mother of 11 who was the basis for the
character “Shirley” in Dreams of My
Father …” [E.A.]
Granted, press releases are always riddled with copy errors,
but come on, forty million dollars a month should at least buy you an
editor.