Dems Take Off Gloves in South Carolina Debate
The Democratic Party Presidential debate held by CNN in Myrtle Beach, SC tonight was more heated - and far more nasty - than any previous encounters. Eric Scheie reports on the mudslinging, the sniping, and the booing from the audience.
In the days leading up to the Congressional Black Caucus-sponsored Martin Luther King Jr. Day debate on CNN tonight, a lot of people — including me — were talking about identity politics, the race card, the gender card, but the card that really got played was the personal animosity card.
The candidates started out talking about the economy. Obviously, everything is in a state of dire collapse because of the Republicans, and Hillary seems to believe that the president can commandeer monetary policy. Where she gets that idea, I don’t know. Her husband never did that and his White House is supposedly where she got her experience. There was generally a lot of bank bashing and GOP bashing, with no solid proposals.
It didn’t take long for the sparks to fly between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which made this debate far more vicious than in any of the previous debates or any other candidates. Hillary Clinton actually got booed, and it is already being reported around the world.
For those who missed the blood, Glenn Reynolds linked the following YouTube video:
And there’s a video here which shows Obama’s full “trajectory of America” quote. (“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.”)
In an almost schoolyard manner, they taunted each other over who was doing the most good while the other was engaged in the worst sleaze.
Obama said that when he was fighting the evils of Reaganomics, Hillary was sitting on the board of Wal-Mart:
Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.
And when she got her turn, Hillary returned fire and brought up the Rezko matter.
“I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, [Tony] Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago.”
Frankly, I think Obama missed an opportunity there. Not that I’m advocating schoolyard fighting between candidates in a debate, but since sleazy campaign contributors were all of a sudden fair game, this would have been a perfect moment for Obama to “drop the Hsu” (as in Norman….) Perfect opening, and Hillary was asking for it.
Hillary also slammed Obama for his “present” votes, and got booed for that too. I’m not convinced that Obama did the greatest job in explaining why that’s such a great tactic in the Illinois legislature, but he seems to think it was. At least he said so. Again, the nastiness seemed out of proportion to the issue, and it showed how personal this has gotten.
For the first time, John Edwards was looking almost reasonable as he gently shamed the combatants by reminding them that none of this squabbling would help the poor.
After the big gladiatorial event was out of the way, things died down a bit, and the candidates turned to discussing the issues that will determine the direction of the election, and the country.
On the issue of health care, Hillary and Edwards both championed state mandates, and ganged up on Obama, who for allowing that he might not use government force to imprison deadbeat patients, came close to being castigated as a “capitalist roader.” It was almost surreal.
Here I have to say that while I’d never vote for Obama, he does at least resemble a human being in terms of style.
Style does matter, and I think one of the things people forget is that there’s a huge gulf between “Obama the Kind” and “Hillary the Cruel.”
It really came through in the health care debate.
Hillary nearly shrieked when she said “I am not running for president to put bandaids on our problems! I want UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!”
Shrill, braying, and grating. At least Obama sounds reassuring, even if his policies aren’t.
This may be irrational, but if I am going to have to endure socialism, can’t I at least get it with a more calming and soothing voice?
Style aside, there is a slight difference between Hillary and Edwards 100% mandates and the possibility that under Obama’s plan, you might not be arrested for failing to have health insurance. Stephen Green (who was drunkblogging the debate) got it right in that regard:
7:01pm Let’¬Ä¬ôs be honest about something here. The biggest reason to mandate health insurance is to force young, healthy people (millions of whom neither want nor need insurance) to pay in, thus lowering rates (and thus transferring wealth) to millions of old people who have a lot more money than young people. But old people also vote a lot more than young people. And by and large they vote for Democrats.
The Nanny State is out of control, and unfortunately, their wards vote for more Nanny Statism. (Sooner or later, the left will get their way, and I fear that it’s just a question of time.) It’s scares me the way so many people think they are legitimately entitled to other people’s money, and these candidates just blatantly pander to them. But again, I prefer Obama’s seemingly kinder gentler approach. Perhaps I’m a fool. (They say you catch more flies with honey.)
Iraq (and the war on terror and national security) are what I and many voters think become the most important issue. There are only minor differences between the candidates there. All agree that the war is wrong and all commit to pulling out in a year. In playing to this left-wing crowd, they completely duck the issue of the permanent bases which are already in Iraq and the troops that will have to stay there. While the left has been complaining about them for years, Hillary deceptively made it appear that Bush is building them right now:
…there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament.That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy.
I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments.
Interestingly, for the first time, they’re shifting a bit from Bush-bashing to McCain bashing, and Hillary said this:
If John is right and Senator McCain is the Republican nominee, we know that once again we will have a general election about national security. That is what will happen.I believe of any one of us, I am better positioned and better able to take on John McCain or any Republican when it comes to issues about protecting and defending our country and promoting our interest in the world. And if it is indeed the classic Republican campaign, I’ve been there. I’ve done that.
Obama disagreed:
I fundamentally disagree with that. And I want to tell you why, because I believe that the way we are going to take on somebody like a John McCain on national security is not that we’re sort of — we’ve been sort of like John McCain, but not completely, you know, we voted for the war, but we had reservations.I think it’s going to be somebody who can serve a strong contrast and say, “We’ve got to overcome the politics of fear in this country.” As commander-in-chief…
(APPLAUSE)
As commander-in-chief, all of us would have a responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s our first responsibility. And I would not hesitate to strike against anybody who would do Americans or American interests’ harm.
But what I do believe…
BLITZER: All right.
OBAMA: Wait, Wolf, let me finish. I was listening to these folks quite some time.
What I do believe is that we have to describe a new foreign policy that says, for example, I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies, because I remember what John F. Kennedy said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.
On this issue (and it is a very important one) Obama scares the crap out of me, and Hillary clearly wins.
Of course that’s just me; the Democratic voters may feel very differently.
Lest anyone forget the idea of tonight’s debate, or the inspirational figure of Dr. King, the candidates were all asked the following:
Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, unfortunately, he’s not, but if he were alive today, why do you think he would or why should he endorse you?
Edwards laid out all the reasons why King would pick him, and it was getting a bit tedious. This set up Obama to steal the show with “…I don’t think Dr. King would endorse any of us. I think what he would call upon the American people to do is to hold us accountable…” along with a charmingly subtle dig at Hillary that “change does not happen from the top down.”
How wonderful it would be if government leaders really believed that. Hillary was left to fiddle again about “change,” and I was thinking about the missing White House furniture.
There wasn’t the crass focus on identity politics that I expected. With all the talk of accountability, it strikes me that identity politics is a way for people to avoid precisely that. To hide behind personal characteristics and avoid being judged by the content of their character.
God help these candidates if King were to return from the grave and had a chance to see the system of identity politics that the Democratic Party now champions.
Will we ever be allowed to judge people by the content of their character?
In Bill Clinton’s dreams, I’d say….
Eric Scheie is a licensed California attorney (UC Berkeley ‘78; USF Law School ‘82) currently living in the Philadelphia area. A registered Republican, war-supporting, small “l” libertarian and self-styled “culture war traitor” he writes (often satirically) about cultural issues and politics at ClassicalValues.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. syn:So, what are Moderates/Independents going to do about stopping either Hillary or Obama from gaining the White House?
The balls in the Center’s court waiting to be played, make it good otherwise the moderate/independent will insure a Dem victory.
Jan 22, 2008 - 4:45 am 2. Gary:The choice in this election is simple. If we want a president who will lead America to the big, bold changes we need and change the conversation in America, Democrats should choose the candidate who has led the field in ideas and shaped the conversation in this race so far.
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures
The fact remains that the Edwards campaign has set the domestic policy agenda for the entire field. He was the first with a bold universal health care plan, the first with an ambitious climate change proposal that called for cap-and-trade, and the leader on reforming predatory lending practices and raising the minimum wage to a level where it regains its lost purchasing power
John Edwards has led the other candidates in standing up for progressive change. In this campaign, the other candidates have followed John’s lead in talking about the special interests — but the special interests understand the difference between rhetoric and reality. That’s why corporate lobbyists are united against John Edwards.
Here’s the bottom line in this election. We need a president who has the vision to put forth bold, progressive solutions to the challenges facing America in the 21st century. John Edwards has shown he has that vision — and he has led on it throughout this campaign.
John Edwards has stated that, as president, he will require the use of safe, renewable energy sources like wind, solar power and biomass to generate 25% of the nation’s electricity by 2025. In the first 100 days of his presidency, John will send legislation to Congress to halt global warming and achieve energy independence.
John has promised to invest $1 billion a year to develop the ability to permanently store carbon emissions and ban the construction of new coal plants that cannot capture their own carbon.
And, as president, John Edwards would invest an additional $1 billion to help U.S. automakers advance the latest technology — including biofuels, hybrid and electric cars, ultra-light materials and drivetrain improvements — to ensure the world’s most fuel-efficient cars are made in America by union workers.
And because John Edwards has not accepted a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs, he has a bold, transformational plan to take on the big oil companies, polluters and power companies to address the great environmental challenges of our lifetime.
John Edwards is the only one that will fight poverty and bring health care and education to the poor & middle class of America. John Edwards would be the best President for all of America, anything less will be as bad as keeping Bush in office forever.
America deserves honest men of integrity that will fight for all Americans, and Edwards is a true patriot that can make America great. He has the substinance, determination, and will to fight greed, corruption and end the outsourcing of our jobs.
His economic, education, health and welfare policies are now being copied by all the canidates. Edwards spoke out months and even years before the others.
America needs to think about why the “Washington Greed, Corruption, Large Corporations and Media” are trying to make this a two candidate Democratic race?
Edwards is the only Democrat able to win the Presidency, as polls have showed that any Republican nominated will beat Clinton and/or Obama.
An Edwards presidency will create American jobs for Americans by ending the outsourcing of our jobs lost through NAFTA and CAFTA. It will end the greed and corruption of large corporations and Washington politicians.
End the $700 million per day wasted in Iraq and invest in America, America can prosper in a global economy without outsourcing our jobs
Vote for jobs for the workers of America, healthcare and education for the middle class by endorsing a true patriot of integrity and honesty for America, John Edwards
Jan 22, 2008 - 5:22 am 3. Mr Ed:Dems to Obama: “Just stay on the Democrat plantation and let us represent you so we can stay in power”
There is a coming moment of crisis for the Democrats and their political plantation slaves, The Dems had forged an alliance of convenience with various victim groups in the past forty or so years , but now some those political slaves want more than to be represented by their political overlords. The unspoken agreement between the various victim groups and the Democrat party is coming apart at the seams because the political slaves want more than to be helpless souls in desperate need of their political saviors for another election. Now, thanks in part to the empty rhetoric of the Dems about how great the rise of blacks has been under their tutelege, one black man actually deigns to be the elected himself and by doing so virtually guts the Dems most consistent core message: You can’t make it without us! You NEED us! WE will save you, just keep us in power!
It is now put up or shut up time for Democrats on the issue of race. Either they believe their rhetoric or they don’t. If a black man is only useful to the Dems as a victim, then the mutual bonds of political convenience betwen them and blacks are about to be severely – Possibly fatally – damaged. At the core of this conflict is the question of whether a member of one of the Democrat parties cherished victim alliance is good enough to stand up on his own or whether the Dems true purposes and desires, which view their victim groups as useful props for their power games and as the rational for being in power at all, will be exposed.
The pleading of Hillary’s shills for Obama to remember his place because this is HER time and she is the current white savior for Obama’s race are both laughable and hidiously revealing. Just another perverse and pathetic ploy by the Democrat plantation masters to keep their power and status by convincing their allies of convenience to continue being good little victims and stay in their proper places.
Jan 22, 2008 - 5:42 am 4. syn:Perhaps Edwards can explain to me how it is possible that the Federal government will prevent death and disease by forcing Universal Health Care?
Particularly when Edwards was one who prospered by suing OB/GYNs whereby ending their ability to practice medicine?
What good is this Universal Health Care (no matter how free it is), if all the doctors and nurses have been sued out of work?
I cannot help but notice that this hypochondriac culture is really making people sick.
Jan 22, 2008 - 6:37 am 5. David H Dennis:If a hospital room costs $680 a night without any extras (which are inevitable, and outrageously priced), and is less comfortable than a Motel 6, we shouldn’t be asking how to stick someone else with the bill, but rather why the bill is so high in the first place.
When I have spent time in the hospital, on my own behalf and that of others, I have been struck by the long waits and shoddy service on offer.
No matter how we spread out payment for $1,000 tests and $100,000 operations, we can’t afford them.
My health care proposal is simple: There is no health insurance and people have to pay their own bills, cash at the door.
I’ll bet we’d see $100 a night hospital stays shortly after that.
Has anyone noticed that the cost of Lazik surgery has halved in the last few years? That’s because it’s voluntary and funded by your own money instead of insurance.
If an average person can’t afford average prices for average healthcare, then making the government pay for it is going to hurt him, not help, because of the cost and overhead of making and monitoring the payments.
D
Jan 22, 2008 - 7:15 am 6. peterike:Hey Gary, nice job cut and pasting from an Edwards web site. Do you go around pasting that nonsense everywhere?
Edwards — so gloriously tagged as the Breck Girl by some — is as phony as phony gets. He’s a snakeoil salesman from day one, and his ideas are those of an imbecile.
And for goodness sake, what is all this ranting about “poverty,” as if we were living in 1930. There is essentially no poverty in America. If you toss out the illegals (yes, please) the vast majority of those left in so-called “poverty” (the statistic itself is a false measure) are people who have made very specific lifestyle choices to end up where they are. These are lifestyle choices they can change at will. Essentially, if you are willing to go to school and then work, and avoid having babies without fathers, then your chances of being in “poverty” are close to nil.
It’s a phony issue by a phony scam artist.
Oh by the way. The funniest notion in your post. “John Edwards is the only one that will…bring health care and education to the poor & middle class of America.”
Uhh, “bring..education to the poor and middle class”? Yeah, what a shame nobody’s thought of that before now.
Jan 22, 2008 - 7:40 am 7. Ari:They are both unelectable. Simply put. No need to over-analyze. Again the Dems have failed to deliver a reasonable candidate.
Jan 22, 2008 - 7:45 am 8. BMoon:Who’s the witless twit cutting, pasting and spamming from the coiffed shyster’s website?
On the other hand, Mr. Ed’s astute comments are the reason why Pajamas is one of the best blogs – not only good writers but the readership and their comments are more discerning and interesting than many political commentators.
Jan 22, 2008 - 7:48 am 9. Sully:Is it just me, or is Hillary and Obama playing out like a Mad Magazine “Spy vs Spy” episode.
Jan 22, 2008 - 7:53 am 10. Valjean:Sully,
LOL! Dead on!
Actually, I think it’s every one of the Spy vs. Spy episodes … I recall that they kept coming back to life for another strip …
… now, as to which candidate is the White Spy and which the Black …
Jan 22, 2008 - 9:28 am 11. John D:All three of them scare the living crap out of me.
They seem to think that they’re running for king or emperor or something. They’re going to micromanage our entire lives to the smallest detail.
Just read the NYT story on Hillary’s economic plan. I would call it Liberal Fascism but Jonah Goldberg used that. Go to Wikipedia and look under Fascism – economic theory and tell me that isn’t Hillary’s plans
Jan 22, 2008 - 11:26 am 12. vic:This is the funniest thing I’ve heard in awhile:
“In the first 100 days of his presidency, John will send legislation to Congress to halt global warming and achieve energy independence.”
On the first part, is he going to petition God?
As for the second, is this the same guy whose party has been decrying any new oil exploration in the US, never mind developing any additional refining capacity?
To me, Edwards’ drivel is no more compelling than all the nonsense about “the experience to deliver change” etc. I hear stuff like that and think, yeah, they really are the three stooges.
Jan 22, 2008 - 9:38 pm 13. David:You say: “The Nanny State is out of control, and unfortunately, their wards vote for more Nanny Statism. (Sooner or later, the left will get their way, and I fear that it’s just a question of time.) It’s scares me the way so many people think they are legitimately entitled to other people’s money, and these candidates just blatantly pander to them.”
Bad English aside, are you trying to tell me that the free K12 educational system for our kids is also stealing from other people’s money? It works exactly the same way, you know.
So, if a 6 yo’s parent can pay for schooling, so be it. If not, who cares? Right?
Jan 23, 2008 - 6:59 am