DEBATE LIVE BLOG: Clinton! Obama! The rumble in Austin!
Posted 27 weeks 23 hours ago byHere's the live-blog of the Dems' debate in Austin:
Joel 8:38 p.m. CST: So what did we learn? Not much – except, perhaps, the Hillary Clinton is toast. She’s behind and had to make a strong argument why she deserves to be ahead again. She didn’t.
And with that: Good night.
Ben 8:39 p.m. CST: The final question may be "philosophical," but the answers I'm hearing certainly are not. Which just goes to show, it's politics, my fellow Americans. Thankfully, we're electing a president, not appointing a philosopher-king.
Joel 8:38 p.m. CST: Clinton on superdelegates: “These are the rules that are followed.” But she’s the one who wants to change the rules by admitting Florida and Michigan delegates after they’d been kicked out. It’s a little bit of doublespeak on Sen. Clinton’s part.
Joel 8:35 p.m. CST: John King should. Just. Shut. Up. Here's an old reporter's trick: Don't make your question longer than the answer.
Ben 8:29 p.m. CST: Was that deja vu I just felt with Barack Obama just now? Why, yes it was!
Joel 8:27 p.m. CST: The surge: Were you wrong?
“This is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder.” That’s very nicely put, actually. The surge might be working, but it’s working in the service of a mission (the invasion of Iraq) that was plainly wrongheaded. This is Obama’s strongest argument of the night.
Ben 8:25 p.m. CST: Obama just said, "When we have a debate with John McCain..." I'm looking forward to that debate. I'm looking forward to a vigorous debate about national security ... in a few months. Right now, however, I'm looking forward to this debate ending.
Joel 8:19 p.m. CST: On health care: There’s a good reason to have mandates in a national health care system – so that people don’t game the system. So that they don’t avoid paying to support the system when they’re healthy, then jump into the system when they’re sick and start draining money out of the kitty.
That said, I think Obama’s got a keener sense of the politics on this. If you’re going to have mandates, you’re going to have to have enforcement. And that’s going to alienate and penalize people. So I suspect that his plan is a little more doable in the current political climate; whether that’s sustainable, financially, in the long-term is another question.
Ben 8:13 p.m. CST: Good Lord. OK, I've heard this debate about which health care plan covers more people before. They had this same argument the last time, and the time before that. So let me return for a second to this myth of "Bush's war on science." That's right, it's a myth. As Kathleen Parker asks over at the Corner, " Is she referring to his long-standing support of embryonic stem cell research as long as it didn't involve creation of life just to destroy it? Is she referring to his support of independent research? Is she referring to the very war that led ultimately to the discovery last November of a way to reprogram adult skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells?"
It's a beefy subject. I'll return to it in greater depth later on.
Joel 8:13 p.m. CST: This is what happens when you don’t have rules for the debate – Hillary Clinton has just decided that the debate is what she wants to debate about. I’m watching the “people meter” on CNN.com and it’s not really helping her.
Joel 8:07 p.m. CST: Below, KansasGirl suggests Obama “isn’t stooping” to Clinton’s level. Actually, it’s an old debate strategy known as “being above the fray.” It’s the kind of thing you do when you’re ahead in the polls and delegate counts – you don’t respond to negativity with negativity, because that might make you look bad. So you strike the statesmanlike pose. Back when Clinton was a little bit ahead, Obama was a little more … barbed in his comments.
Joel 8:04 p.m. CST: Still: That’s it? Clinton’s made the crux of her argument that Obama’s speeches aren’t original. That’s why she should be president?
Seriously: That’s the strongest, most passionate distinction she’s made tonight.
Joel 8:01 p.m. CST: “It’s change you can Xerox.”
Oh goodness.
Ben 8:00 p.m. CST: Obama on the ridiculous "plagiarism" charge: "This is where we start to get into the silly season of politics." Clinton shouldn't be harping on this. It looks desperate and lame.
Ben 7:54 p.m. CST: Obama just brought up his delusional followers. Out of context, that sounds pretty bad.
By the way, Obama said something during his answer on immigration that demands elaboration: "Hate crimes have sky-rocketed in the wake of the immigration debate." Anyone have any numbers to back that up? Or is this more anecdotal stuff? I'm serious. Evidence would be nice. Not just nice. Indispensable.
Joel 7:53 p.m. CST: John King and his “all hat no cattle” question – he’s just a little too pleased to be asking the question. Almost like it’s more important than any answer that could be offered. All hail … John King. (Sigh.)
On the upside, Clinton just mentioned her 35 years of experience. Can somebody bring up John Edwards’ father being a millworker, just for old times’ sake?
Ben 7:48 p.m. CST: Hillary is talking about English. She doesn't agree we should have an official language. For a more interesting exchange, mosey over to this topic.
By the way, nobody except the most blinkered, philistine nativist would disagree with the notion -- just advanced by Obama -- that Americans should be multilingual. This is so easy, so safe. I agree with you, Joel. Not much of a debate here.
Joel 7:44 p.m. CST: A bilingual nation? Yeah, I don’t think that’s going to get any traction.
It sounds like Hillary Clinton favors a market-type solution to the issue. Don’t regulate it – just let the invisible hand of linguistics do the job!
Joel 7:42 p.m. CST: Obama: “This is an area where Senator Clinton and I agree.” This is not a debate. If Obama’s ahead, he’s staying ahead. There’s simply no reason to change a vote based on the discussion we’re having.
Ben 7:39 p.m. CST: So Hillary Clinton is against the fence, except where she is for it. She would listen to the people who live along the border. Well, a lot of those folks want an honest-to-goodness fence.
Ben 7:37 p.m. CST: Joel, I meant if you really want to crash the market. Go with Hillary's plan, and you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Oooh! It's a fence question!
Joel 7:34 p.m. CST: Um, Ben, if you want to crash the housing market , you don’t have to vote for anybody – that’s kind of happening already.
Oh, and: I’m reminding you to revisit the “war on science.”
Question: “Senator Obama, is your position the same as Senator Clinton’s?” If that’s the question being asked at the debate, I think it’s fair to say there’s not much new ground to cover here.
Ben 7:33 p.m. CST: Speaking of plagiarism, Sen. Clinton just recited the Bush/McCain litany -- "out of the shadows," "path to legalization" -- on comprehensive immigration reform.
Ben 7:30 p.m. CST: Again, with the freezes and moratoriums on the housing industry. If you want to crash the housing market, vote for Hillary Clinton.
And again with this cliché about George Bush's "war on science." Remind me to come back to that later.
Joel 7:29 p.m. CST: Well, we’re a half-hour in, and if this is Hillary Clinton’s last, best chance to make her case for the nomination … well, I guess I’m not seeing it. She’s been invited to compare what she would do differently than Obama “on day one” – and that’s the real question, isn’t it? – and she’ s not really making any kind of case.
Ben 7:24 p.m. CST: I take back what I said about Hillary Clinton not sounding naive. I missed that she referred to Raul Castro as an "agent of change."
Ben 7:19 p.m. CST: "I recall when John F. Kennedy once said that we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate," Obama just said. Kennedy, of course, was the architect of the U.S. policy toward Cuba. And he is speaking in circles here. I think Hillary Clinton isn't much better, by the way, but at least she doesn't sound naive.
Joel 7:15 p.m. CST: Starting with a Castro question! Didn’t Nixon and Kennedy get a similar question during their debates?
Actually, why focus on meeting Raul Castro. That’s a pretty narrow focus on what’s possible in U.S. policy in Cuba. More important: Embargo or no? Obama says he’ll loosen up policy on remittances and travel restrictions, which is savvy – it lets Miami Cubans go home to see family, but doesn’t open up things so much that actual trade could happen. In other words: A return pretty much to the pre-Bush days of Cuba policy.
Ben 7:15 p.m. CST: So, Hillary wouldn't meet with Raul Castro, then?
Ben 7:14 p.m. CST: Wow. It's true: Barack Obama is a downer. To hear him tell it, the country is going to hell. He is the cure. Does that message comport with reality? Or are the people in that poll deluded?
Joel 7:13 p.m. CST: That woman Obama mentioned who is working, going to school and still can’t afford to help pay for her sick sister’s health care? She’s probably just not working hard enough.
Ben 7:05 p.m. CST: And now the ritual invocation of the Democratic saints. In Texas, it's Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards.
Ben 7:02 p.m. CST: Didn't CNN use this same set in Hollywood? What a rip-off.
Wolf Blitzer is good. But Wolf would make for a more exciting -- to say nothing of physically challenging -- debate.
Joel 7:01 p.m. CST: Campbell Brown? No Wolf? I miss Wolf.
Ben 6:58 p.m. CST: Incredible. Some 98 percent of Lou Dobbs' viewers think the candidates should clearly state their position on the NAFTA superhighway. The people have spoken!
Joel 6:44 p.m. CST: In keeping with redblueamerica.com live-blogging tradition, I've broken open the scotch -- the good stuff tonight: Laphroig 10-year. At its side, some dark chocolate from the local "We Love Europe!" store. I'm now ready.
But I've got to tell you: Even as somebody who loves politics, I'm finding it hard to muster enthusiasm for this debate. We've seen, what, 18 of these already from the Dems? What can we possibly find out tonight that we didn't already know?
Maybe there's something. But it will probably have more to do with attitudes, body language and willingness to "go negative" than it will anything substantial.
Meanwhile, I'm watching the pre-debate feed on CNN.com. It's really, really Texasy.
Thoughts
Plager-lies is a better word for it
Submitted on February 22nd, 2008 by AnonymousIf you tell lies then you should admit it Mr. Obull-ma. Hillary tells the truth. She was brought up in a republican family and excelled in a time when women had no affirmitive action programs.
JOHN MC CAINS FELLOW REPUBLICANS
Submitted on February 22nd, 2008 by AnonymousRick Renzi who john Mccain campained for was indicted today for nineteen counts of taking bribes. Renzi who has fourteen children and was elected with his War contractor fathers money was one of John Mccains personal friends along with Jim Kolbe the gay Arizona senator who also resigned under the cloud of suspicion. The three muskeeteers if you will. lol
John Mccain the coward
Submitted on February 22nd, 2008 by AnonymousThis guy ha never been seen at a Veterans hospital in his life. John spent the last eight years folling around Bush like a poodle dog. John Mccain is a political addict. John has been just a profesional politition for over thirty years. His one attempt a t business was a doughboy pool store in Tucson that failed in less than thirty days in Arizona in july. Ater that failure his first wife left him. His current wife was convicted of stealig drugs of a veteran she was taking care of.He was treated like family by the V.C. because his dad was a ranking officer in Westpac. Many stories surfaced that he told the V.C. everything they wanted to know. John Mccain is a coward and I am a former friend of his who served in nam.
OBAMA THE CHICAGO COWARD
Submitted on February 22nd, 2008 by A HIGHLY DECORATED VETERANDid OBAMA ever serve his country no. Obama has no backbone to serve this nation. Without THE GREAT BILL CLINTON balancing the budget. Bush would have bankrupted this country. Obamas lone service to this great country was getting elected to a welfare state district with hip hop and questionable money. The republicans will eat him up like the child that he is and then we will have eight more years of Mccain who is a BUSH representitive. Is this what you want as democrats...for this gret nation
obama v clinton v mccain
Submitted on February 22nd, 2008 by AnonymousIn the beginning, I liked Obama. But I soon noticed a pattern.
Our country is a failure.
Obama begins explaining our downfalls one by one. The misery we have
forced on others. I'm defeated...and hopeless.
But then, Obama speaks about being able to save us. My spirit lifts.
This pattern is becoming sick. Obama, nor his wife, acknowledges our
greatness. We are the people, over 300 million of us verses over 1000
politicians, and we are being told we are failures....but OBAMA can save
our souls.
Their speeches amount to hating who America is and pay back for being
told to wait in line (Michelle) for college. Over 100 years later and I'm still
being made to feel guilty for having to stand in line for college.
Wasn't it Obama, who recently attacked McCain for saying American could
be in Iraq for 100 years? Quite an attack seeing that his wife thinks we still owe her.
Clinton's opening speech was
Submitted on February 22nd, 2008 by AnonymousClinton's opening speech was nice.
"What we shouldn't be doing is tearing each other down, we should be lifting the country up." quoted Obama last night.
In the beginning, I liked Obama. I soon noticed, in the start of his speeches (view his first remarks of last nights debate) Obama tends to make me feel like a huge
part of "failure". Our country is a failure. I instantly feel like a looser. Towards the end of his speeches....I feel saved by a SAVIOR.
At least with McCain, I start with a feeling of pride.
Line By Line Response
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_Johnson1. Bill Clinton was more of a free trader than any of the Democratic candidates. He got the surplus he got -- which was actually headed for a recession -- due to the policies of the Republican Congress. Alan Greespan helped on inflation.
Clinton did three things that he deserves credit for:
a) ending the welfare state
b) fighting for a balanced budged
c) NAFTA and broader free trade principles.
All of those things helped the economy. All of them explicitly run counter to progressive policies.
2. The question of the debt is more correctly framed as one about spending. You are right that the debt is growing. It must be stopped. The fastest way to do that would be to slow the growth of government and of government services at the federal level. That's the fastest growing sector and the one that accounts for the biggest chunk of the federal budget.
3. On the question of taxation, taxes actually bring in the most revenue when they are a) relatively low b) flat -- that is to say it hits all incomes equally. A progressive income tax, by which I mean one that has different rates for different people, ends up being a net drain. See the Estonian flat tax as a rather perfect example of what I am talking about. If you cut rates, you almost always increase revenues because businesses respond like a cat on cat nip.
4. It all comes down to whether or not you believe in the "starve the beast" approach to government spending. McCain didn't when the Bush tax cuts originally came up. He did so because he bought into the more progressive hype about tax cuts for the wealthy. (If you were trying to engineer tax cuts, you would want to start with the wealthy who are less risk adverse, and then move to the middle class.)
More debate is needed
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by JoelLet me offer a couple of quick responses, then I'm going to bed. Cause that's how I roll.
"The Republicans failed because they started behaving like Democrats."
I hate to break this to you, but a Democratic administration left President Bush a surplus. So I don't think you're right there.
"The debt really isn't a political question."
Every question of government is a political question, strictly speaking. And the problem with the debt is not that we're paying back 0.0001 percent a year for a lifetime on a dollar. We're paying it on billions and billions of dollars. That's different. And since the debt is growing it becomes more of a problem the longer it happens.
"There is no economic evidence that paying off debt requires tax money."
We have a problem of terminology here; I think you're saying that debt payment doesn't necessarily require a tax increase. And I might even agree with that, provided a number of other factors lined up correctly. But, strictly speaking, it's the government's debt. The government gets its money -- to pay for tanks and debt -- from taxes. I think you're suggesting that the debt can be paid for by increased revenue (but not higher tax rates) from a growing economy. Correct me if I'm wrong. But it's still taxes.
FINALLY: "But John McCain wasn't a part of it."
Perhaps, but he wants to be. He voted against the tax cuts for the wealthy that contributed to our growing debt; now he's a fan. But I will concede he's been a little more fiscally conservative -- in that he's willing to also restrain spending -- than his GOP colleagues. Whether he, as president, can impose discipline on those colleagues is, I think, very much an open question.
Chuck Busts Out The Econ. Books
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonLet's go after that line by line.
The Republicans failed because they started behaving like Democrats. It's disgusting, to be sure. But John McCain wasn't a part of it.
On the question of the debt, it's a longer economic question. Basically, the reason so much of our debt is bought by other countries is that they expect a return on their investment. Under capitalist system, if they sell their bonds, we can put them in American hands, which may actually be a better investment.
The debt really isn't a political question. Think about it this way. If I give you a dollar and you pay me back .0001% over a lifetime every year, instead of paying it back in full right away, then if the money you get can be used to start a business. It's called a loan. As long as the money is invested in good things, this isn't a problem.
Now you can question whether that money is being spent on good things -- i.e. the Iraq war, the growth of the entitlement state -- and that's a serious political question.
There is no economic evidence that paying off debt requires tax money. In fact, if taxes remain constant (or even decrease), the debt actually solves itself because the growth of business is higher than the rate you have to pay back. Think of it as a loan. It will make more sense that way. If you want more evidence of this, see The Armchair Economist.
Tax and spend progressivism -- more like corporatism is exactly what we've seen under President Bush. You'll get more of the same with Obama or Clinton, to be sure.
McCain Will Stomp Whoever It Is
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonI just realized that McCain might actually stomp them.
Hillary is trying to run on her "service". McCain has served more years than she has.
Barack is trying to run on his "judgment." McCain's judgment is almost never in question. (I'll forgive the tax cuts.)
But my favorite line of the night was "it's not change you can believe in. It's change you can Xerox."
I live under the tyranny of that change. We don't want any part of it.
Chuck...
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by JoelRepublicans had six years this decade to "starve the beast" by reducing taxes AND spending.
They didn't do it.
They didn't come close. Instead, they cut taxes -- but grew spending by leaps and bounds.
That's debt, Chuck. Somebody's going to have to pay that off someday. Mostly to China. And paying that debt off is going to require tax money. Unless, of course, we go the route of a tinhorn banana republic and default on those debts.
So I'm not so sure that "tax and spend progressivism" is as bad as you make it sound -- because the only alternative we've seen is clearly worse, and clearly bad for our country.
The Narcissism of Elected Office
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonThe final speeches sounded like A.A. meetings.
And like classic alcoholics they try to scam us by promising that their problem -- tax and spend progressivism -- will help us. It won't.
The McCain Economic Dig
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonHe doesn't understand the economy, to be sure, but he sure does understand free trade. After all, Cato calls him a "free trader." Something Obama apparently didn't learn at Columbia or Harvard Law.
Just look at his record at Cato.
Oh Hillary. . .
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by KansasGirlSHE DID NOT. . . yes, ladies and gentlemen, that was a reprise of the question that made her cry in NH. Am I supposed to feel sorry for her now?
And now we're going to use wounded warriors to score political points. Don't know how I feel about that one.
Stand on principle. Cut off
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonStand on principle. Cut off the funds. Choke the war effort.
That's why I support cutting taxes. Starve the federal beast.
Re: Barack Obama is Spineless. . .
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by KansasGirlBecause "defunding" the war leaves soldiers without food, weapons, and a plane home to their families. Whether you agree with the war or not, the simple fact is that we're in it now, and it does take funding to keep American lives safe. I don't like it. I think the money could be better spent. But we have a responsibility to our troops, and the idea of cutting off the money was brought up as a political tool for this very reason - it can't feasibly be done.
Nothing wrong with appealing to the Spanish votes
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonBut Padre has a bit of religious overtones and to suggest that you can run a country because you can run a family is pretty terrifying.
Barack Obama Is Spineless on the Iraq War
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonIf he really didn't believe in the War in Iraq, why doesn't he defund the war effort?
Re: You can't pay for everything by leaving Iraq
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by BenAgreed. We even wrote a column about it.
Re: "But he's a father"
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by JoelBecause Republicans would never appeal to the electorate in Spanish, eh?
Re: Hey Ben...
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by BenThanks for looking up those hate crime stats, Monica. I think Obama's campaign needs to clarify. My guess is that he has a fairly elastic standard of what constitutes a hate crime. But that's only a guess.
Just Plain Lying: You Can't Pay For Everything By Leaving Iraq
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonObama would have you believe that we could fund all these infrastructure improvements by leaving Iraq. It just isn't so. Entitlements are the biggest expenditure. And he wants to add more for the troops. Please.
First of all, it isn't governments roads. If you really want the economy to take off, you don't spend money on things with little pay off.
But He's A Father...
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonOver at realclearpolitics.com, they have a copy of Patrick's new ad, Como Padre."
Viva la Fatherland. Generalisimo Obama, reporting for duty.
Hey Ben -
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by KansasGirlI just looked up the FBI's hate crime stats, and there have been around 7,000 some hate crimes reported each year going back to 2003. . . so I'm not sure where Barack's stats on those "skyrocketing hate crimes" are coming from. Maybe he meant racially-motivated crimes against Hispanics, but overall, hate crimes haven't jumped that much.
Obama's site doesn't have any data, either. Boo.
I was a real Barack supporter - but now I'm wondering.
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by AnonymousIt seems he has no original ideas. What's the deal with all the copied speeches and ads?
Patrick and Obama Connection
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonHere's a perfect example of the connection between the two of them. The speech is the same, effectively.
It may not be plagiarism, but it sure is more of the same.
Joel's trying to pick a fight. . . .
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by KansasGirlTouche - but I don't think he's "ahead" enough to really call it a front-runner strategy. And regardless of whether it's a campaign tactic or not, this campaign SHOULD BE ABOUT ISSUES. I applaud him for that.
Let's watch now, as Hillary goes back and makes sure she gets the last word...
That right there. . .
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by KansasGirl. . . is what we call not stooping to your opponent's level. Listen to him talk about POLICY as she tosses cute quotes and harps on non-issues. NICE.
HaHA!
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by KansasGirl"The notion that I plagiarized from someone who. . . gave me the line is silly! But we're starting to get into silly season in politics, so. . . "
Amen, brother
"Actions speak louder than words"
Submitted on February 21st, 2008 by KansasGirlWell, it was going to come out sometime. . . cheap shot, Hil.