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

[RickRaff]

Obama was exposed tonight as someone who could not speak to his record. His health care plan is inadequate and his foreign policy lacks that of Hillary Clinton. Hillary speaks in depth and detail, ans she has the experience needed to solve some of our current problems.

Obama was stuttering and stammering all night long. Hillary is a tough old broad, and I think she caught Barack Obama off guard.

I really liked what John Edwards had to say tonight. Although, I don't care for his sappy stories. Obama and Edwards are "pie in the sky" type of politicians, and Hillary is a "political realist."

My score:

Edwards 40%
Clinton 40%
Obama 20%

[lovethesinner]

When you say Hillary's performance was "second to none" you are quite right.

No one else was booed lustily for lying.

[ncvoter]

28 years of Bush Clinton Bush Clinton.
Do we want a democracy or will we let a dynasty rule us?

Further, you can see how Bill is pulling one way, and Hillary another.

With Hillary as the candidate for Nov, Dems face losing congress, because surely the republicans will have reason to turnout, if not just to vote against Hillary.

With Hillary, a large group of Dems will have to hold their noses to vote, and not because she is a woman.

Its all about democracy, issues, vision and in Hillary's case - baggage.

We don't have a democracy if we let the same two families rule our country for 32-36 years.

Say no to the Dynasty, and yes to new ideas.

[MrMurder]

From what I get, others inform me a rate freeze would essentially cause the many places holding subprime interest to go belly up.

Major burnback.

Banks can't be bought ought to any equitable level either.

We've previously bought back some of our currency to hedge loss, we don't have enough revenue to do that at this time. Tax cuts for billionaires are too important.

If revenue can be restored to the Clinton level via tax reform we can perhaps do that.

Instead of easing interest quarterly do so monthly, across a two week basis(fortunate for certain firms who pay on 2 week scales) and then we can stagger the radical change needed as best can be done. That may even trigger weekly rate changes.

This still doesn't address the lack of demand, because purchase power is gone. Wages declined, jobs are gone, industry is gutted and field cleaned buy outsourcing.

We needed to keep wages low to create more jobs, according to GOP types.

Bush has a plan for throwing money out in the form an unpaid for tax break. It doesn't address the unemployed or those who are past their means now, but when has republican policy ever really done that?

Perhaps asking Bush to pay for whatever means are used can help. Read his lips, no new freedom from taxes, is our children learning?

How often do we ask?

Poppy faced this dilemma, reulting of the same policies he used previously to dumb the masses, repeating tax cut mantras and leaving unfunded mandates.

Will James Baker's phone line to the Saudi bailout start ringing?

He wanted a tax cut before arrival of bad economic news preceding the SOU speech, tried to make it a part of his trip abroad, panhandling for money. From the looks of it, no go. Still he announced the plan anyways, written on IOU's from others, and the Asian markets tanked in anticipation of his request when the Mid East spigot dried up for the warmonger.

Bush sees himself as a peacemaker. He's made a piece of crap out of our monetary policy.

[BJG]

I agree. Hillary as always held her ground and let's not forget NObama threw the first punch tonight with his crack about Walmart. He's very quickly losing it that now he is starting to invoke Ronald Reagan in desperation of tapping into that base. I think Edward finally found his voice but only for a brief moment. If he truly wants to remain in this race the time has come to expose NObama and all his foibles and then, try and take on Clinton. During these last few debates he sided with him and got no where. Tonight he attacked him and for the first time ever, people actually began noticing him. The key to this election is to get NObama out of this race and then you have an anti-Hillary candidate to chose instead. I don't see this Country ever electing a black president given the degree of racism but, given the lesser of two dislikes, electing a female one instead. If people are unhappy John Edwards is the only one that can stop it but has to get NoBama out of this race. He did exceptionally well tonight challenging him.

[Tigerella]

WOW... finally somebody who saw what I saw. Hillary can dish it and take it... Obama only dish. Enough of the complaining dude... or the Repubs will eat you for breakfast. See how well Kerry did.

[kevinmcd]

Steve
Sure Hillary acted like a fact machine but her personality is a huge turn off-she is smug, deadly dull, and obnoxious.

Steve, it is proven that Blacks and other minorities were targeted for subprime loans and are suffering on a far greater level than non-minorities. If you read most anlayses on the subject it will be clear to you. Also, I have known lenders who targeted minorities because they could get higher rates and higher commissions. Wake up from your denial!

[extravatrek]

Edwards has my vote, but I have to admit I'm becoming more and more impressed with Hillary. I thought I knew her; she was always in Bill's shadow, a survivor of countless humiliations and attacks, a Senator. I opposed her, initially, for dynastic reasons. But she is very gifted and intelligent and savvy and judicious. She might make me forget the other Clinton.

[independentrepublicrat]

BlakeforRichardson posted the following:

Hillary Clinton Voting Record sample: NV = Not Voted

10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV

09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion NV

12/18/2007 Inclusion of Iraq Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations NV (didn"t think these were important)

12/13/2007 Energy Act of 2007 NV

11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) NV

12/18/2007 Iraq Withdrawal Amendment NV (didn"t think Iraq was important)

11/08/2007 On the Nomination of Michael B. Mukasey for the Office of Attorney General NV (didn"t think attorney general vote was important.)

And I can come up with a hundred others as can you at: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

[independentrepublicrat]

BlakeforRichardson posted the following:

Hillary Clinton Voting Record sample: NV = Not Voted

10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV

09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion NV

12/18/2007 Inclusion of Iraq Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations NV (didn"t think these were important)

12/13/2007 Energy Act of 2007 NV

11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) NV

12/18/2007 Iraq Withdrawal Amendment NV (didn"t think Iraq was important)

11/08/2007 On the Nomination of Michael B. Mukasey for the Office of Attorney General NV (didn"t think attorney general vote was important.)

And I can come up with a hundred others as can you at: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

[independentrepublicrat]

Actually your assessment of the subprime loan fiasco in regards to African-Americans is patently untrue. I am sure you think that Insurance companies just by happen stance charge Blacks higher rates for the same products as whites, and judges/juries just by happenstance consistently sentence Blacks to prison more often and for longer terms than whites for the same crimes in the same cities in the same courtrooms. Get your head out of the sand or out of your posterior.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Edwards comes out with policy first, and better policy. Edwards is left Hillary, and I am a policy guy left of Edwards.

[MartiP]

Edwards did really really well. Hillary has an overall command of issues, inside out, that the others can't match. She simply knows her stuff when it comes to policies and programs, and it shows. She's also a fighter, who will not back down one inch, and anyone who thinks we are not going to need that is dreaming.

Obama can't stand up in a fight, it seems. He got off stride the first time he got challenged, and never seemed to regain it. I think the Republicans would eat his lunch in the general, and they would be even less "fair" then Edwards and Clinton. Obama can't take a hit with grace and without being rattled. Sorry, but if he can't take Bill and Hillary double-teaming him without crying to party leaders to call Bill off, he will be no match for the RNC slime machine. He's not yet ready for the big leagues.

[czf]

I find it amusing that you state how, despite the opinions of others (which of course are valid, you would agree), you have to use your own filters on the debate.
then you say that it's clear that Clinton performed second to none. clear to who?
i thought Clinton was fine, and so was Obama. Actually, I thought Obama maybe had a slight edge. Clinton continues to say that voting records matter (in the stupid "present vote" issue, and others), but to me it seems that she is the one who's voting record doesn't hold up to scrutiny. When Obama, who I think truly believes it's worth telling people why he did what he did in his past, is criticized as not being able to take the heat by Clinton, she slides one step down in my regard.
Voting records do matter, and Obama alone seems to believe this. He's not being defensive, or weak, he's treating his voting record like it matters.

[msopine]

My worry is not about the 130 "Present" votes Obama made in the Illinois Assembly, it's about the important votes he deliberately missed in the Senate. He took a pass on the Terry Schiavo vote and he didn't come back for the Kyle/Lieberman vote; which of course later he said he would have voted against. Also, if someone who is supporting Obama can point out to me one anti-Iraq vote he's made since he's been in the Senate, I would be grateful. Bill Clinton didn't mean that Obama's original stance against the war was a fairy tale, he meant presenting himself as the anti-Iraq candidate and Hillary as the pro-war candidate was a fairy tale. The fact is, Obama has voted the same as Hillary on every single Iraq related issue since he got into the senate. The one chance he truly had to distinguish himself from her as the anti-war candidate was to come in from campaigning and vote against the Kyle/Lieberman bill. Like the 130 present votes in Illinois, he preferred not to take the risk. Hillary voted completely wrong, but at least she had the guts to vote.