February 22, 2008
The Democratic debate
Interesting. Until the last question, I was getting ready to say that this was the first debate that Obama had won outright.
The format, allowing for longer answers than usual, suited him well. He was relaxed and assured. And some of the questions (especially the ones from John King, I thought) were more probing than average, inviting the kind of considered response that plays to Obama’s strength. He did well on the “commander-in-chief” question, too. Oddly, Hillary ignored that one to begin with, preferring to hammer away (with diminishing effect, I thought) on health mandates. When the national-security question was put again, she was not strong, settling for a quick tour of recent events–Cuba, Kosovo, Pakistan–as if to show she reads the foreign-news pages, glancing off lots of specifics but saying nothing about them. Obama answered the question in a broader way, as he does, but this time seemed firmer and more authoritative–”I would not be running for president if I thought I wasn’t ready to be commander-in-chief”.
And I also thought Hillary made a terrible error over the Obama-is-a-plagiarist nonsense. When asked about this accusation, a patently unsuccessful stratagem, instead of walking way from it, she dug herself deeper in, and even used a canned line about Obama’s standing not for “change you can believe in” but “change you can xerox”. Amazing. (I had to ask my wife if I had heard that correctly.) Hillary’s supporters were embarrassed into silence; somebody booed. Obama swatted it away as the kind of stupid politics he is opposed to: case closed. For Hillary to make that mistake in the heat of the moment would have been bad enough. To rehearse it beforehand, as she evidently had, is simply inexplicable.
That was a bad moment, all right, but overall, you understand, she was doing pretty well. We know she is a great debater. It’s just that Obama seeemed to be coming over unusually well in a setting he has often found discomfiting. And so, as I say, I had him as winner on points…until that last question.
“I’m wondering if both of you will describe what was the moment that tested you the most, that moment of crisis.”
Obama’s answer was only OK. He spoke about his life’s “trajectory”–which, who could deny, has been pretty impressive. But Hillary’s answer was superb. Also rehearsed, no doubt–but this time to magical effect. After alluding with a laugh to the fact that “everybody here knows I’ve lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life,” she said that her problems didn’t really amount to much. She described a recent visit to a hospital where she had met injured soldiers.
And I remember sitting up there and watching them come in. Those who could walk were walking. Those who had lost limbs were trying with great courage to get themselves in without the help of others. Some were in wheelchairs and some were on gurneys. And the speaker representing these wounded warriors had had most of his face disfigured by the results of fire from a roadside bomb.
You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.
And I resolved at a very young age that I’d been blessed and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted.
That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.
Reading the words, it looks false. But delivering them, she was subdued, and seemed moved–as who would not be–and it came over as genuine. A brilliant, self-effacing answer: What are my moments of stress, compared with those facing so many ordinary Americans? What indeed. The stupid pettiness of the plagiarism charge, the strident bossiness of her prating on health care, so characteristically Clintonian, faded out. She stole it at the end, and the closing standing ovation was at least two-thirds for her.
Ironically these last moving words seem to have been “inspired” by speeches Bill Clinton gave in the 1992 contest.
See http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179614.php
This does not make them any less moving. There is nothing wrong in political allies being “inspired” by each others words, but it does make the “xerox” comment seem even a little shoddier.
Posted by: PGW | February 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am | Report this commentIt is mind-boggling to think how much time (and money) both candidates have wasted in attacking each other over non-existent policy differences and in manufacturing trivial personality oriented sound bites, instead of focusing on how to end eight years of egregious Republican misrule. The entire Democratic campaign seems to be aimed at locking in the 12 year old vote, except that most 12 year olds are probably too sophisticated to pay much attention to this kind of nonsense.
Was last night’s standing ovation a last hurrah for Hillary, who should long since have pulled out of the race and given her full support to electing Obama, so that the country doesn’t have to risk suffering four (or eight) more years of Republican militarism, neo-con wars, persecution of Latino immigrants, neglect of African-Americans, Guantanamo, religious fundamentalism, plutocracy and K Street corruption?
Mr. Crook, are these issues not worth a little more comment, and the latest manufactured tag lines from a candidate a just a tiny bit less? And are not dumbed-down political campaigns (and, with all due respect. comment) which do not go far beyond a candidate’s tears or smiles, or which are fixated on which candidate has just gained three-tenths of a percentage point in approval ratings among left-handed 34-year old 5 foot 10 inch men with blond hair of Latvian ancestry in Southern Idaho who were born in September, almost as destructive of true democratic discussion as the traditional method of locking up one’s political opponents?
Posted by: algasema | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm | Report this commentAlgasema,
Let me see if I have this straight, the country should forgo the competitive primary system so that your chosen candidate can win without scrutiny.
So we should destroy “true democratic discussion” to preserve “true democratic discussion”. Much like killing the patient to cure the disease.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | February 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm | Report this commentJBP, I think most people reading my above comment would have understood that I was calling for more, not less, discussion of the issues, something that seems to be an endangered species in US presidential campaigns.
Unless my calculator is out of order, Obama has just beaten Hillary in ten straight primaries. Counting in expat votes would make eleven. That’s not doing badly for a competitive primary system. Of course, if Hillary wins big in Ohio and Texas, she will be competitive once again, and no one could then try to deny her a chance to compete.
If she loses in those states, however (as I believe she will , polls notwithstanding), even Bill admits that she is gone. My point is that the Democrats need to unite behind their strongest candidate as soon as possible in order to fight back against the usual Republican tidal wave of smear, fear and hate which is without question coming around again this fall, probably with greater force than ever before.
One demographic does seem very important, however - namely Hillary’s advantage over Obama with lower-income, less educated white (and Latino) voters. Would those, by any chance, just happen to be the people who might have the biggest problem in voting for a black man?
Posted by: algasema | February 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm | Report this commentalgasema, I am usually an admirer of your writing and your analysis (even as I disagree with your conclusions) but your answer to JBP is a disappointing waffle.
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | February 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm | Report this commentSo if I understand correctly, words and inspiration matter, but only when they come from Hillary Clinton? Got it.
He won last night’s debate. Not by a wide margin, but he won. Moreover, a tie is a victory for the front-runner. He more than held his own on issues, and she let fly two petty and irrelevant attacks about “plagiarism” from his friend and campaign co-chair and the ignorance of some state senator who supports him that made her look bad, and enhanced his appeal as a candidate who sticks to the high road. A moment of rehearsed saccharine “genuineness” from Clinton right at the end does not make up for the other 88 minutes. In fact, if it hadn’t been the last thing said that night, we wouldn’t be talking about it now.
Posted by: TH | February 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Report this commentRon Cohen-Seban, my last comment may indeed be disappointing, but not as disappointed as I would be if Hillary actually wins in Texas and Ohio, especially if, as I suspect it might be, this were due to race. If she wins the nomination, we will have another Republican president.
That is why so many Obama supporters hope against hope that Hillary, whom most of us admire for her intelligence, passion and her stand on many of the issues, will have the wisdom and good sense to step aside before the Democratic party splits apart and hands the presidency to John McCain. If this is waffling, so be it.
Posted by: algasema | February 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 pm | Report this commentalg,
The FT reading-public would certainly not want you to be disappointed. Your opinion is all that matters. You are the one we have been waiting for.
Clinton, McCain and possibly Bloomberg should all should step aside so that you can avoid disappointment.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | February 22nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm | Report this commentSo! Clive! I hope you’re not suggesting that, somehow, a knocked-flat-on-the canvas Hillary contrived to land a knockout punch as the referee was counting?
Posted by: kid5rivers | February 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm | Report this commentQuite right, JBP, and I hope they do step aside, so that the millions of people like me who want to see America get off of the Bush/Cheney waterboard and get back on the road to a more democratic, tolerant, and just society will also avoid disappointment.
Posted by: algasema | February 23rd, 2008 at 3:56 am | Report this commentInitially, Algasema, citing the latest contests Obama has won, stated that Hillary Clinton, “should long since have pulled out of the race and given her full support to electing Obama.” However, in her next entry she said, “Of course, if Hillary wins big in Ohio and Texas, she will be competitive once again, and no one could then try to deny her a chance to compete.”
So Algasema believes that Clinton should “long since have pulled out of the race,” but if Clinton wins the next two primaries no one should “deny her a chance to compete.”
That’s some catch, that catch-22
Posted by: Luis A. del Valle | February 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this commentMr. Del Valle, if Hillary Clinton has big wins in Texas and Ohio, it would be hard to claim that she should give up because she has no chance of being nominated, which has been the main argument against her up to now. So from that perspective, it would certainly be reasonable for her to keep on fighting, if that is what she wants to do.
However, even if Hillary can get back in the race by winning these two big states, perhaps followed by Pennsylvania, where she has a strong machine going for her, she should pull out of the race, for the good of her party and the country. That is the point I have been trying to make, though evidently not as clearly as I should have.
Hillary simply cannot win the general election, because she comes across to too many people as a cold, calculating, super-ambitious candidate who will not only say or do anything to get elected (so what else is new?) but is willing to stoop to any level to order to take cheap shots against her opponent. Even worse, many people who, like myself, agree with her on many of the issues, are turned off because she seems to exude a greater sense of entitlement to the presidency than any feeling of genuineness as a person.
Even on the issues where unabashed liberals like myself agree in principle with her, such as health care, opposing ethnic cleansing in the form of police state roundups and mass deportations of illegal immigrants, and putting an end to the occupation of Iraq, the Clintons’ White House record of “triangulation” and “centrism” and Hillary’s waffling and parsing on issues such as immigrant driver’s licenses and Iraq raise a lot of questions as to how far she can be trusted to keep any promises she makes.
This does not mean that people who share the above views are all Hillary-haters. Anyone tempted down that road need only watch fifteen minutes of Fox News at any time of the day or night in order to bring a good deal of dormant sympathy for Hillary up to the surface.
Moreover, while Hillary has been accused of many things, having the potential for greatness is not one of them. But Obama might indeed turn out to be as great a president as many of his supporters believe he has the potential to be. For a country that has been waterboarded for the past seven years, maybe it is worth giving someone with this kind of promise a chance to get us back on the road to true democracy, not the tortured Bush/Cheney version.
A final comment for JBP, who mentioned Bloomberg, I presume seriously, as a possible candidate. Many of us in New York remember all too well that only four years ago, during the Republican convention, Bloomberg banned demonstrations in Central Park, miles away from the convention site, and had hundreds of peaceful anti-Bush demonstrators arrested and held in jail without charges until the convention was over. I think that quite a few people here, myself included, would just as soon vote for Musharraf.
Posted by: algasema | February 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm | Report this commentMr Crook -I am suprised that you do not comment on another “telling moment” which occured during Thursday’s great debate, and which has sparked a considerable uproar, as the New York Time’s message-board will attest.
It concerns Senator Obama’s allegation that, according to a US army captain, who for now remains nameless, US troops were compelled to scrounge cast- off Taliban weapons, because they were so ill-equipped.
My input to the NYT debate appears below - but I would be interested in your take on this topic. I wrote:
The question is “Did Sen. Obama report the captain’s comments, at the time, through the proper channels to the proper authorities? Did he verify this story before making these claims and if so, with whom ?
Posted by: Ann - New York | February 24th, 2008 at 4:20 am | Report this commentIt is appalling to think that our troops are reduced to scrounging weapons from locals. I just don’t believe it, or I won’t believe it unless confirmed by a credible and unbiased source. Sen Obama is not that source.
However - a public debate is not the proper arena for broadcasting this type of information. It was a breach of protocol, and moreover, undermined the credibility of the US Armed forces for all - including our enemies - to hear. The loquacious Sen. Obama should learn that there are times when too much talk is dangerous. True or not - what matters is that he showed poor judgement - not something we should risk in a potential commander in chief.
Ms. Algasema:
My entry merely highlighted your circular reasoning, which was motivated by pernicious partisanship.
I am glad, however, that you realized that you were engaging in fallacious reasoning. Thus, in your subsequent entry, you obviated your presumptuous and undemocratic premise that Clinton, “should long since have pulled out of the race.” Although I dare submit that the rest of your, “unabashed,” liberal stream of consciousness was superfluous.
The essential point is that Ms. Clinton now enjoys your moral approval to participate in the next three primaries.
How magnanimous of you. The Republic is saved.
Posted by: Luis A. del Valle | February 24th, 2008 at 9:45 pm | Report this comment