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

[AnninCA]

Thank you. I've supported Hillary from before Day 1. She is NOT just her husband's wife.

She is amazing, astute, and passionate enough to be prepared for this job.

The debate was a lot of fun. It was nice to see Edwards tag-team Obama for once. I admit I am one who felt it was turning into the Boy's Club before. Clearly, no.

I really do hope the better candidate wins. We need someone as strong as her.

Bill Clinton's job is to draw the crowds to get her message out and defend her vigorously, which he's doing great at. I'm also very impressed that Chelsea is working so hard. A rare sight.

I was glad that Hillary let people watch as she leveled very direct attcks on Obama's record and wishy-washy responses. There's a distinction now between the 2 candidates that's definable.

[rayelle]

Back in 2004 when Obama gave his speech at the DNC, I thought he could be the next president of the United States, but recently every time I see him in a debate it bothers me hearing him stuttering...I just don't understand what happens to him when he is in that kind of setting. He stutters and seems not able to find the right words, or maybe he is being too careful of what he is going to say, which doesn't seem natural to me and makes him sound like a good ole "status-quo" calculated politician.

[desmirl]

Ronald Reagan warned Republicans not to say anything bad about fellow Republicans. Too bad the Democrats have no one to give them similar advice. Hilary and Obama continue to diminish each other (and themselves) by their Jerry Springer tactics. What's next? Throwing lecturns at each other? Grow up, candidates. Give us someone to look up to, not to make fun of.

[efranklin]

As I've observed the discourse in the Democratic campaigns the past few weeks, it has really felt like a 2-on-1 WWE wrestling match with both Clintons ganging up on Obama. (Bill being the one that comes up from behind Obama with the metal chair.) This debate in South Carolina, crystallized this perception into clear focus. It was the worst caricature of Hillary Clinton on all levels: hyper-partisan, lecturing, and self-important. I would say this showing was a net loss for the Clinton campaign. I found it particularly distressing that Clinton would sucker punch Barack Obama with the Resko bit, while the Clinton's politcal history is literally littered with sleazy supporters. Norman Hsu, Marc Rich (Pardongate!), Jorge Cabrera, Web Hubbell, ...

[macphilms]

Hillary was like a writer getting paid by the word last night. A good lawyer should know when a point has been made and move on -- she always has another dull way to make the same point a third, fourth, fifth time. But that's not the worst part of the Clinton candidacy -- she and her husband (who has an ability to look right at the camera and lie to the American people, second to none) share with the Republicans that core philosophy that continues to doom America to be a sad shadow of itself: the end justifies the means.

[TheMiddleman]

My vote: None of the above.

[LeeFromVA]

Steve, when I saw your headline I thought, oh brother, another Hillary supporter blindly defending her. But I was wrong, it was actually a thoughtful post. Your thoughts on the debate helped to put mine in perspective. As an Obama fan I thought he absolutely gave the best performance. I wish he didn't have to fight back against the Clintons, but the truth is he has no choice. If he doesn't stand up to their attacks he will be out of the race in a heartbeat. But I must say I am impressed with his ability to defend himself in a common sense kind of way. He is able to take criticism when it's a fair policy debate and he pointed out some ways that he felt didn't fall into that category.

I'm sure my own bias clouded my opinion of the debate, just as I'm sure yours did. This debate probably just reinforced what people already felt. I found it interesting when you said, "She had numbers and details flowing forth as if they were as natural as could be." Because honestly that's where she loses me. She talks very fast with a high pitch and jams it full of numbers and details, and adds a lot of anger. What works for you is a turn off to me. I prefer Obama's slower, explanitive nature, that states his case clearly. I read it as she studies numbers, he has a clear vision. I found myself looking forward to every word he had to say and when Hillary was talking it just seemed like blah, blah, blah. That's probably not fair, but I can't help it.

[Countess]

Mrs. Clinton talks like a bureaucrat and the fact that she has memorized the details of policy should not obscure the fact that she is the worst possible candidate and she and her husband have so poisoned the debate there is no chance at all that she could win over independent voters who will determine the outcome of the next election.

[gallo146]

Obama was correct with what he said about Reagan having ideas whether they were correct or not. I remember how for the first time in a long time Reagan won the vote of many democrats in the South. Remember the term "Reagan Democrats"?

I found Obama refreshing, honest and genuine. The Clintons i find shifty and untrustworthy. Bill Clinton is abusing his position as "Democratic party leader" by attacking a democratic candidate front and center. Other Democratic leaders with the exception of Mayor Shirley Franklin and Cong. Cyburn are afraid of opposing a strong personality like Clinton. Very shameful and yes, troublesome for the Democratic Party. Howard Dean where are you?

[whit]

Blacks of similar economic means, as the questioner stated, are 30% more likely to have been sold subprime mortgages. How can you pretend that's not racist? Edwards ducked that implication too, to be fair (although the rest of his answer was solid). Hillary didn't address the question squarely at all. Obama was the only forthright speaker on that podium.

[sofia]

Hillary and John were the winners last night. Obama acted smug and babbled too much and said very little. He talks about bringing people together but last night he was acting like a condescending jerk. The "rock star" label has gone to his head. People, beware.. Bush, too, was selected in spite of his ignorance on the issues and we have to stop picking candidates based on how they make us feel. let's pick the smartest candidate who will benefit all of us.

[SteveRoach]

"... because look at what's happening -- if you're a big bank that helped get us into this mess, you go borrow money from Abu Dhabi or somewhere."

- Hillary Clinton

Hillary understands the root cause of America's problems while Obama presents a message of Reagan-esk feel good politics.

[furion4865]

Wasn't Hillary involved in Republican politics during the civil rights era, enough said. It is clear to me from the media coverage that there is a generational split in the support of black voters in South Carolina, the old "I don't want to leave the plantation" black folks are sticking with the Clintons, whereas, the young black people are going with Obama. I'm African-American and was a John Edwards supporter originally, but after watching Barack closely, I'm clearly convinced he is the best and the brightest candidate the democrats have to offer and he would be a glowing example of the best attributes of what America has to offer EVERYONE. Obama is obviously intellectually superior to either Hillary or John Edwards and after eight years of George "boo-boo the fool" Bush, America needs to put forth its best and brightest, not the same old stale-assed canned politician.

[joja]

Mr. Clemmons --

Regardless of whom you thought won the debate, the bottom line is, Hillary can NOT win the general election.

You may have been impressed with her "performance," but that's all it was -- a performance -- over-rehearsed and over-caffienated -- but a performance, nonetheless. It's like the fake-tears she let loose with on the eve of the NH primary -- it's an act.

And who's surprised by this? She is, afterall, a politician -- someone who will do anything, say anything, and, yes, fake emotions to get elected.

No wonder Karl Rove has wet dreams about running against her in the general elections. They know a loser when they smell one.

[jsomerville5]

Did we watch the same debate ? Her answers were canned and scripted, as always. There is no air or breathing room in her answers.

And she didn't even answer the question about her husband's involvement in the campaign. And that was the lamest answer ever in response to the Martin Luther King story. She went off on something about all the women's stories she'd heard.

Obama was grace under pressure and his answers are most definitely not canned.