South Carolina Democratic Debate

I'm not going to run through every detail of this extremely interesting debate, and I wish I had heard none of the political commentators afterward because listening to Mark Halperin (a virtual friend of mine) after, I was very irritated. He said he gave Obama an A- tonight and then a B+ each to Hillary Clinton and to Edwards.

I have to go with my own filters, not those of others -- and to me, regardless of who one supported tonight, it's clear that each scored points but that Hillary Clinton performed with an authority, presence in that huge hall, and mastery of detail that was just second to none. She hammered Bush on the semi-secret deal he's trying to rig with the Iraqi government to commit American troops and bases indefinitely -- something the others did not mention. She had numbers and details flowing forth as if they were as natural as could be.

One thing that was weird for me in this debate is that Hillary Clinton is clearly not mimicking her husband in any way. John Edwards is. Bill Clinton is the master of anecdotes and "let me tell you all a story" moments. Hillary is dense with facts, details, experiences -- but it's not warm and fuzzy.

I watched Ed Rendell one night at a 4,000 person DNC dinner in the final year of Bill Clinton's tenure introduce Al Gore in a kind of passing the torch evening from Bill Clinton to Gore. Both Gore and Clinton walked on to the stage at the same time -- and Clinton sat meekly behind Gore while the then hoping-to-be 43rd President literally "lost the crowd" which began speaking at an embarrassing volume over his rambling speech.

Clinton walked up after Gore who introduced him warmly (though the two were not speaking to each other in real life) and started his talk with "let me tell you all a story. . .", and the room went completely quiet.

John Edwards tries that in these debates, and has heartwarming moments -- particularly when he spoke about his mill working father tonight -- but overall, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama really do Br'er Rabbit stuff. . .and I think I like that.

Here are some other quick reactions just off the top of my head.

First, I was miffed at Obama and Edwards for their ignorance or purposeful duplicity about the subprime home mortgage crisis. They both said that African-Americans were perniciously targeted by lenders. That's about as untrue as one can imagine. The subprime crisis is an outrage -- but it was a systemic problem -- and everyone who wanted credit got it. Had everyone else other than the African-American community received loans that were subprime and based on substandard collateral then there would be a case of discrimination, but to argue that blacks were targeted to give bad loans to -- below prime rate levels -- was grossly wrong.

Hillary Clinton, alternatively, did not say that. She argues for a "work out" plan that freezes rates for six months and stops foreclosures for a period of time. The neoliberal Chicago school economist won't like this approach because it lengthens the period which capital is inefficiently distributed. But the government -- mostly because of a combination of financial innovations in the market it doesn't understand, leading to poor regulation -- actually helped create the housing bubble and the crisis. To extend the bubble to work out the worst elements so that the shock harms fewer people is sensible.

I was surprised to hear Obama and Edwards not embrace this plan. Obama didn't want to reward speculators. This isn't a simple game of good guys and bad guys. There are hundreds of billions of dollars of bad loans hiding out there in financial portfolios that are not yet disclosed -- and much of the financial network will not finance each other in fear of subsidizing a corrupted portfolio. So, the problem is not only with homeowners but with the entire financial network.

Hillary Clinton got this in a way that really surprised me.

Barack Obama's answer on US foreign policy was impressive, particularly the part about engaging foreign leaders, the good ones and the bad ones. He gets the general vision of needing something new and different right, but I always find myself wanting more detail.

I thought that Obama was not given a fair shake for his hundred plus "present" votes in the Illinois legislature. That is the way that they do it there. He answered honestly and forthrightly -- and Edwards seemed off base to chase it further as it's an artificial issue overall in my view.

I also liked the fact that while Edwards and Hillary both spoke about green-related job creation, Obama was the only one who said "broadband" and mentioned the need for robust levels of public infrastructure investment across the board. That is the kind of financial stimulus the nation needs now.

I'm glad that Obama got hit by both Hillary Clinton and Edwards for his health plan. He needs to change it and just come up with a plan that covers all Americans. Edwards' best moment was on health care policy I think, although he was wrong to say that none of their plans cover illegal aliens. I believe that Clinton's plan does in fact have a sub-tier package of health care for illegals as it's important to the core mechanism of her plan to cover everyone. When Edwards said that none of them covered illegal aliens, she shook her head no -- but then never commented about it.

And while I didn't like Hillary raising the slum lord issue with Obama, I was surprised to hear him refer to Rezko as "that individual." That individual is someone Barack Obama has known for 17 years and someone who has raised more than $14 million for him and who was on his Senate campaign finance organization. Now Hillary Clinton had Norman Hsu -- but while I didn't expect Obama to embrace Rezko, he might have just said that he was surrounded (as they all are) by people who are not always what they seem to be. At that moment, Barack Obama using "that individual" sounded a lot like -- well -- you know who. . .

Hillary Clinton was right to blast President Bush's financial rebate plan in his stimulus package. That kind of spending should be directed at generating America's next platform for innovation and for rebuilding the core infrastructure of the country. Clinton got some of this right in my view, but Obama was a bit more defined and thorough.

OK, enough now I guess. I'm not sure that these debates matter though I wish they would. I sat tonight watching the debates with a couple of Obama supporters who were groaning about his performance. But Mark Halperin still ranked him first.

They did not -- but they still support him. I'm frustrated as I think that Dems need a hybrid Obama-Clinton candidate, and I don't hear either candidate pushing all of the right buttons, or even enough of the serious, most important ones.

But in my view, Hillary Clinton turned in the best performance tonight. Then came Barack Obama, and close after though not enough came John Edwards.

But just one aside, I "hated" the question Wolf Blitzer posed of "If Martin Luther King was alive today, why would he endorse you?" Waste of our time -- and demeaning to King's legacy and the importance of this debate.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Comments

[PetalPower]

You're the only press person I know of who has made this observation. It was obvious -- stunningly so -- that Clinton out performed Obama. What is wrong with the general press? And I realize there is a tidal wave of Obama support -- but can't people notice what seems so clear? I don't find Obama totally disagreeable but certainly he is not clear on issues and plans. THe scary thing is that this is the kind of blind faith that got Bush elected for the first time to serve his second term. No one can really say that his first term was a real election since he was basically appointed. I'm for Hillary. We need her.

[factanonverba]

You wrote: First, I was miffed at Obama and Edwards for their ignorance or purposeful duplicity about the subprime home mortgage crisis. They both said that African-Americans were perniciously targeted by lenders. That's about as untrue as one can imagine. The subprime crisis is an outrage -- but it was a systemic problem -- and everyone who wanted credit got it. Had everyone else other than the African-American community received loans that were subprime and based on substandard collateral then there would be a case of discrimination, but to argue that blacks were targeted to give bad loans to -- below prime rate levels -- was grossly wrong.

That's not what Edwards said. What he stated was that African-Americans because an overwhelming percentage are poor were disproportionately targeted, not because they were black per se. You simply were not listening.

[tbone99]

Edwards did not say subprime loans targeted blacks other than the fact they tend to fall more in the in the category of the poor who were targeted and were often denied other loans because of credit history or lack of being financially educated in the first place.

[jeanruss]

I am not willing to compromise my vote. I have been for Edwards and will stick til the end. The debate was so much more interesting because he was there. I just don't believe the majority of Americans will vote for either Clinton or Obama for president. I wish it wasn't so, but let's be realistic. The rightwing talk and radio shows have big ratings because millions of people agree with the content. Remarkably, many of my Republican friends like Edwards and want to vote for him.

[deminmo]

For me the best moment was when Edwards reminded
Wolf and the other two candidates, that he was
also there as a candidate. That has been the
case since Iowa, no one really sees Edwards.

I wish they would remember why Democrats need
to get the Presidency and who they might be
up against on the Republican side. Some
mention was made, but they all need something
that really makes any one of them, the better
option. Right now, I don't see any real reason
to believe either party has a great candidate.

[ChristopherLib]

I saw only clips of the first half of the debate, but on going on the second half, which dealt more with real issues, I think Clinton did win with her detailed policies, looking like a true leader on issues of healthcare, on Iraq, and the sub prime mortgage crisis. For what I saw she came off and the smartest and most experienced on stage.

Some people here compare her to Bush, but she's really the anti Bush in so many ways concerning her intelligence, tireless work ethic, and utter and complete competence. She went directly after Bush more than the others did.

[Bocababs]

Since the press has already Crowned Hillary Queen of the Nomination, I will go ahead and say it....Obam­a in 2012!!

But while we are all crowning Hillary, she is going to be the defining moment for the GOTV --GOP Style, this coming Fall. There are people in my family all (six of them) who will not vote for Hillary and only one of them who will. Judging from what I am hearing on the streets down here in SO FL, McCain has a bigger following than Mitt or Rudy.

[MariaHopeful]

I respect your opinion but beg to disagree. I thought Obama showed a lot tonight. He showed that he is tough...th­at he could take a punch(es) and give as much if not better. And this is important for all of those naysayers who say that he will wither underneath the Republican attack machine. I particularly like when both Edward and Clinton went after him and he was able to calmly command the stage away from them. I thought the clear winner was indeed Obama even though CNN through Wolf Blitzer tried mightily to hand the debate to Clinton. It was disgusting to see the Media replay the Rezko comment and implied that by Clinton mentioning this man it made her the winner. How absurd! You can win a debate by asking a nasty question? Not in my world!

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

The highlight of the debate (for me) came after Wolf Blitzer asked the annoying question about which candidate King would endorse.

Obama answered: none of us.

It showed Obama's ability to think outside of the box-- as he did with the Reagan reference, with the C.O.O. comment, his criticism of the Iraq War when Bush was 90%, or not changing his name to John Smith before entering public life.

We could dig up some mistakes Obama has made, but overall we see someone who hasn't played it safe or said the easy thing to score a few political points.

Hillary resents this because, in her jaded view of the world, "they all do it." All politicians are corrupt, campaign dirty-- and it's "fun" to go at each other's throats ("We're just getting warmed up"). Obama has been taking crap from the Clintons ever since he got within 5%, and all the while he's been trying to stay on message. Well, last night he stood up for himself, and Hillary saw this as someone just as flawed as she is calling out her flaws like he is better than her.

Yes-- Obama has flaws. But when you support the Iraq War as vigorously as the Clintons did, and thousands of Americans are killed and wounded and we lose our way as a nation-- economically, morally-- because of it, that's not the same as doing five hours of legal work for a "slum lord."

Obama invokes Reagan's name, and according to Hillary he agrees with Reagan's policies. "Party of ideas" becomes "Party of better ideas."

The funny (or not so funny) thing about the Clintons is that their lack of conscience is such a gaping abyss, they don't even realize when they are acting without a conscience. They just attack, throw words around, score a few political points-- it's all part of the fun.

In his response to Blitzer's would-be-pandering question about King, Obama showed he gets it. He still has a strong conscience which keeps him from saying and doing certain things.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Obama called Clinton out on some of her and Bill's distortions of his record that REALLY hurt Clinton's credibility.

This is her achilles heal, so his shining a bright light on it REALLY proved harmful to Hillary. One of those political pundits said Obama spent too much time explaining his votes and articulating what had happened, but what she clearly missed was he wasn't just defending his own record - he was showing exactly how Clinton was dishonest and distorting his record.

Not only did he defend himself - he put a big questionmark over Clinton's credibility. And after 8 years of George W. Americans want more than anything, a leader whom they can trust.

[Querent]

As someone who until recently was an Edwards supporter, but has gone uncommitted after Senator Feingold's comments, I am undecided between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. However, I have come to some conclusions.

Sen. Clinton has shown in her debate performances and by her conduct during the campaign that she is a real progressive. Sen. Obama has not, though it is possible that, in spite of failing to convince me, he is one. He needs to prove it, and being wishy-washy about hammering the Repigs undermines any effort to do so.

While I don't have a problem with Sen. Obama's campaign behavior, I am coming to loathe the behavior of his supporters. Many of them are reasoning backward from their conclusion that Sen. Obama is the One to characterize any person or argument which calls that conclusion into question as stupid, corrupt, shortsighted, malicious, etc. They exhibit a total lack of self-control by stating that they won't vote Democratic in the general if Sen. Obama doesn't get the nomination, calling Sen. Clinton a NeoCon, saying she is worse than Bush, reviling Sen. Edwards for taking votes away from Sen. Obama, and a litany of other atrocious behavior. This kind of shit needs to stop.

If your defense of your chosen candidate reflects badly on him instead of well, then you probably should get out of the discussion. Sen. Obama is acquitting himself relatively well in these arguments, but petty, childish, assaultive argumentation in his behalf undermines his efforts.

Not all Obama supporters behave this way, but enough do to poison the discussion. By and large, nobody accuses Obama of being a NeoCon, and while some of the arguments used against him (notably the "present" votes) are absurdly unfair, on the whole his personality and character are not being assassinated in the way Sen. Clinton's are.

Obama supporters need to clean up their act before the disgust some of us feel with them attaches itself to their candidate.

And by the way, everyone who disagrees with them on any given point is not automatically a Clinton supporter.

[bobo2626]

I thought it was a great debate, even with all the clatter and clutter of bickering.­I support Hllary and thought she did a good job last night,. But what I came away with was that I am so proud to be a Democrat. I looked at all of them up on stage and realised I could support( and would) any of them in the general election. There was so much passion and vision expressed. We desperatly need that witht the way this counrty has been run for the last 7 years.
when this is all over( the primaries) we need to leave our egos at the door. Put away our hurt feelings that our candidate did get the nomination, and VOTE ( not choose to not vote)for change. Because when push comes to shove, we need to change this counrty. and in my view, any of these fine candidates will do that.

[csuber]

No offense, but Steve, were you watching the same debate as me?

[jbatch]

Wow. An article on issues. thanks Steve.

[Nutcase]

Perhaps you would have enjoyed the debate they had on CNN. Both Clinton and Obama proved themselves too petty to be president.

cognito ergo populistae