Some live blogging – until I get tired of it.
First round, health care. Substance – a wash. Both stated the nuances of their health care plans. Style – Clinton kept pushing to get in the last word.
Second round, NAFTA. Clinton starts with a bizarre complaint about getting the first question on things. Then she said that NAFTA was something she opposed. (I’m a little unclear on what acts of Bill Clinton’s administration she gets credit/responsibility for and what she doesn’t — the long experience claim seems to be based on her, no doubt, active role as First Lady. So, it would seem, the NAFTA legacy would be something she needs to take responsility for.). Obama thinks NAFTA has been bad for the U.S. He is opposed to various perverse financial incentives for companies that have been adverse to the U.S. generally.
Tim Russert is annoying. But, he is holding Clinton’s feet to the fire on her prior pro-NAFTA statements. Obama says that Clinton is right on how to address NAFTA going forward. He says that he is not against trade agreements generally because he thinks our workers can compete in terms of productivity against any other workers in the world. He points out that NAFTA has been a successful proposition for the bottom lines of large companies. He says that investing in education, technology, etc. was another key to our economic success. Tim Russert is still annoying. He’s badgering her about her pledge to increase jobs in 2000 when she was running for Senator. She has an excellent response – “I thought Al Gore was going to be President.”
More after the break.
Round 3 – Foreign policy experience. To Obama, how can you compete with a guy like McCain who has a lot of foreign policy experience. He says relevant experience isn’t the same as longevity in Washington. He says that his judgment was better than McCains in terms of Iraq.
Clinton is asked to attack Obama on his foreign policy experience. She doesn’t take the bait right away. She touts her own experience. She thinks it’s unfair for him to take credit for a speech against Iraq when she had to actually cast a vote on the subject. Now she’s warming up to casting aspersions on Obama’s policy positions, but to her credit isn’t really touting the theme that a vote for Obama puts America in danger. Obama responds by saying that it’s not surprising that he has cast votes similar to that of Clinton’s on the subject of Iraq since he’s been in the Senate. He says that, once the bus has been driven into the ditch, there are only so many options to get it out of the ditch. He says that she gave into Bush on going to war in Iraq.
Obama says that, if Iraq says to get out now, he would because they are a sovereign nation. He further points out that Iraq is a situation that costs a lot of money and distracts us from Afghanistan. Tim Russert is still annoying. Clinton still pretty much agrees. Russert keeps interrupting to ask a bunch of “what ifs”. Clinton calls him on his bullshit. Obama says that he reserves the right in Iraq, after the troops leave, just as he reserves the right in Pakistan, to root out terrorist cells where the host nation lacks the will or ability to do it themselves.
All right, I’m done. Sorry about the half-assed live blogging.
So many of Russert’s questions sound like, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Given the magnitude of the Republican failures of the last eight years, and their refusal to put down the shovel and stop digging in so many ways, I would think Russert’s, “You’re dangerous, Maverick” tone would be more appropriate in a Republican debate rather than a Democratic one.
And tonight’s Ward Churchill was Louis Farrakhan. Someone nutty who has said nutty things has professed a preference for Obama. Therefore, Russert’s earth has shifted on its axis, and the only solution is for Obama somehow make it all better. Any idiot could go down south and find some racist to say nice things about Bush, and it would be equally pointless. Russert appears to believe that the act of receiving unsolicited or undesired praise is some kind of crime.
We all thought Al Gore was going to be president. Woe is the world.
Listening to and watching Obama last night I was amused at one point thinking how non-obama fans are charactertizing his campaign as ‘feel good’ and superfical and without substance,and this after 7 years of faith-based Bush programs such as abstinence only.
Clinton jumped the, uh, pillow last night. Kudos to Obama for the “we’re not whining about it” comment. She simply can’t complain about an ad when she has been mis-characterizing his stance on the issues from the start.
Obama stayed calm and steady, letting Hillary look the fool by bashing herself against the rocks. Tim Russert did ask some strange (and worrying) questions, but I think Obama did a good job answering them. And while he did get crazy with the hypotheticals, I think those are things we still need answered. Even if the situation will be different in the “real world” being able to answer the question in some way means that you have actually thought through the issue.
At this point, not only has Clinton looked like a vengeful fool, she’s alienated some (a lot?) of us democrats. If a miracle occurs and Clinton suddenly becomes the nominee, then I won’t be voting for her in the general. I see little difference between Clinton and McCain – they are both establishment candidates and I have no hope for the status quo – it will simply be another 4-8 years of gridlock and partisan grind. Hell, I might just vote for Nader out of spite – and I don’t think I’m the only Dem thinking that way…
0.5% of Democrats probably feel that way. We’ve been down the “woe is me because my Democratic candidate is wooden, or talks like a senator, or otherwise isn’t all I wish he would be” road before, and I don’t think we’re going there again. Nader said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, and gave us Bush. If he hasn’t noticed the stark difference between the last Clinton administration and the Bush years, then he probably isn’t qualified to toilet himself, let alone be president.
We’re in Afghanistan?
At this very moment, I kind of feel like I wouldn’t vote for Clinton in the general, but I know myself well enough to know that given a week or two for the bad taste to fade after the primary, I’ll get on board.
Like I’ve said before, I think that Bush has created such an extensive mess that we need someone of the opposing party to occupy the White House. Had McCain been President in 2000, I don’t think he would’ve gotten us into these messes, but I don’t see him cleaning them up either.
Man, on the Farrakhan question, would it have killed Obama to just say “No”? He said too much, and when you boil it all down, a “no” would have sufficed. And it led to the pissing match about “reject” vs. “whatever”.
Obama doesn’t need Farrikhan. He could offend every single last African American voter and still get all their votes (the calculation Clinton made in ’92 with Sistah Soldjah). Just say “No” to the Russert question and move on.
One danger that Obama has is that he knows that he’s intellectually quick, and he likes the sound of his own voice. It has worked well for him so far, but it could very well let him down in the future. Sometimes the most direct and concise answer is the best.
A little off the subject; but did you hear the audio of Bill Clinton this week saying, “When you elect ME as president….”
Wonder how much longer their marriage will survive after the primaries are over?
Each of the debates Obama continues to impress me. If you have a watched a few of these the differences in the Health Care plans are beating a dead horse.
Doug, I liked seeing Russert being annoying.
Highlights for me was finally hearing Clinton admitting her biggest mistake was her vote concerning the Iraq War. She should of done this a while ago.
This race is shaping up to be one of the most interesting in my lifetime. As was pointed out earlier, this is the first time since 1928 that neither an incumbent president or vice president is on the ticket. I was talking to a buddy of mine from high school last weekend who lives in Lewisburg, Ohio (near Dayton). He served in the army for 4 years in the early 80’s and generally voted Republican. He believes like I do that we need a strong military, but realizes that going into Iraq like the U.S. did was poor leadership. We were joking about the Ohio primary next Tuesday. He is going to sit out the primary and not vote until the general election in November. One of the interesting things about this race (taking into account the uncertainty of next Tuesday’s vote) is that when Indiana votes on May 6 and when Kentucky votes on May 20 in their respective primaries is that the race (at least on the Democratic side) may still be up for grabs giving Indiana and Kentucky voters a say in who the nominees are.
“this is the first time since 1928 that neither an incumbent president or vice president is on the ticket”
Despite its incessant repitition in the media, this is simply not true! In 1952, neither Republican Dwight Eisenhower nor Democrat Adlai Stevenson had been president or vice. President Harry Truman withdrew after losing the New Hampshire primary, and V.P. Alben Barkley (the Veep) was in the race only a few weeks, dropping out before the convention facing concerns over his age (74). Why this assertion persists when it’s so easy to look up the facts is beyond me.
End of lesson; back to topic. :-)
Doubtful. I truly believe that if Hillary cannot break the 60% mark in BOTH TX and OH, she’s done, even if she can’t see it.