Democrats' N.H. debate doesn't change status quo

About The Swamp | Contact The Swamp | RSS Feed More Politics


« Hustler's Flynt seeks another DC sex scandal | Latest postings

Originally posted: June 3, 2007
Democrats' N.H. debate doesn't change status quo

Posted by Frank James at 11:00 pm CDT

After mulling over tonight's Democratic debate from St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, the bottom line appears to be that the debate didn't do much to change the Democratic presidential race's overall dynamic.

There were no major bloopers on the part of the leading candidates, senators Hillary Clinton of New York and and Barack Obama of Illinois, and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, so it's doubtful the debate did much to change their relative positions in the various polls.

The debate likely didn't do much to change the positions of the second-tier candidates either. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware continued to his I'm-a-straight-shooter approach by bringing up the cold political realities congressional Democrats face in ending the Iraq War, as in they don't have the votes.

SEN. BIDEN: Wolf, look, the Republicans and this president have not told us the truth about this war from the beginning. The last thing we Democrats should do is not be telling the truth. We have 50 votes in the United States Senate. We have less of a majority in the House than at any time other than the last eight years. Ladies and gentlemen, you're going to end this war when you elect a Democratic president. You need 67 votes to end this war. I love these guys who tell you they're going to stop the war. Let me tell you straight up the truth; the truth of the matter is, the only one that's emboldened the enemy has been George Bush by his policies, not us funding the war. We're funding the safety of those troops there till we can get 67 votes.

But Biden sort of stepped on his whole straight-talk schtick by refusing to criticize the lawmakers standing on the stage who didn't vote with him to fund military operations in Iraq. He said he didn't want to make a judgment about his "friends." Hard to imagine Harry Truman saying that.

What jumped out about tonight's performance by Clinton, the frontrunner amoug the Democratic candidates in national polls, was that she kept saying she didn't want to deal in hypotheticals.

When asked by Wolf Blitzer of CNN whether she would use force or diplomacy to deal with Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon, she said:

SEN. CLINTON: Wolf, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals, because we've had an administration that doesn't believe in diplomacy. You know, they have every so often Condi Rice go around the world and show up somewhere and make a speech. And occasionally they even send Dick Cheney, and that's hardly diplomatic, in my view. (Laughter.) So from what I would say -- (applause) -- we won't know until we get a president who is committed to diplomacy and will do things like use the great diplomats that have come up through our country; use former presidents, use people like Bill Richardson. Only then will we be able to make a clear assessment.

She dissed hypotheticals a couple more times, which was sort of odd since a presidential candidacy is one big hypothetical by definition.

Obama, who was widely seen as flubbing a war on terror question at the last debate by not having a quick enough trigger finger was asked the debate's first question. It was about the war on terror.

MR. SPRADLING: Wolf, thank you. And thanks to all eight of you being here this evening. We appreciate it.

Senator Obama, you get the first question of the night. It has been nearly six years since 9/11. Since that time, we have not suffered any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Just yesterday, the FBI arrested three men for a terror plot at JFK Airport. Could it be that the Bush administration's effort to thwart terror at home has been a success?

SEN. OBAMA: No. Look, all of us are glad that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, and I think there are some things that the Bush administration has done well.

But the fact of the matter is is that we live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world, partly as a consequence of this president's actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq, a war that I think should have never been authorized or waged. What we've seen is a distraction from the battles that deal with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq, that we're seeing them send folks to Lebanon and Jordan and other areas of the region.

And so one of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. If we do not do that, then we're going to potentially see another attack here in the United States.

MR. BLITZER: Does the Bush administration, Senator, deserve any credit for the fact there's been no terrorist attack here in the United States for nearly six years?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I think there are some things they've done well. I think they've cracked down on some of the financial networks; I think that is important. They have unfortunately not strengthened our alliances with other countries, and one of the most important things that we're going to have to do to be successful in rooting out these networks is to make sure that we have the cooperation of other nations.

That is not something that we've done, and the effort in Iraq has greatly weakened our efforts there.

Obama apparently didn't see the illogic some critics might point to in his answer. If the Iraq War has created a whole new pool of potential recruits for al Qaeda there, and instability that is spreading through the Middle East from there, how does one justify phasing out of Iraq? Because of the debate format, there was no followup to this.

Edwards kept his aim on Clinton and Obama, especially Clinton, for refusing to say, as he has, that she was wrong in voting to authorize the war.

MR. EDWARDS: I think one difference we do have is I think I was wrong. I should never have voted for this war. And this goes to the issue Senator Obama raised a few minutes ago. He deserves credit for being against this war from the beginning.

He was right. I was wrong. (Applause.) And I think it is important for anybody who seeks to be the next president of the United States, given the dishonesty that we've been faced with over the last several years, to be honest to the country. We have to reestablish trust between the American people and the president --

MR. BLITZER: All right.

MR. EDWARDS: -- and that's going to require any of us who want to be president to be open and honest with the American people.

That means you, Hillary, he might as well have added.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico still had problems delivering a coherent answer on his stance on the immigration legislation before Congress.

He still seemed to want to have it both ways, to be for it and against it. Definitely not the way to break into the top tier.

GOV. RICHARDSON: I'm a border governor. Two years ago, I declared a border emergency because of the tremendous flow of drugs and illegal workers coming into my state. I deal with this issue every day. Here's my position: I would not support legislation that divided families. I would not support legislation that builds a wall, a Berlin-type wall between two countries, the way the bill in the Congress exists today.

Now, what are the essential components of any good, sensible immigration bill? One, increased border patrols -- double the size of border patrols and technology. That makes sense. Don't reduce the National Guard that's there.

Secondly, an earned legalization program. Yes, I support that, one that is based on learning English, paying back taxes, passing a background check, getting behind those that are trying to get here legally, obeying laws and bracing American values.

And then lastly, finding ways that we penalize employers that knowingly hire illegal workers. That is essential in an immigration bill.

MR. BLITZER: Well, let me get back to the question. Almost all of these 12 million illegal immigrants who are here would qualify for this new Z Visa, which would make them legal residents of the United States, so here's the question: Why isn't this amnesty?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It isn't an amnesty.

MR. BLITZER: Why?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Because what this bill does is it sets standards, the standards that I mentioned -- learning English, passing background checks. There's a touchback provision -- the head of household has to go back and then apply. I believe that is unworkable, too. It divides up families. But you don't immediately get an amnesty, you don't immediately get citizenship; it's a process that takes about 13 years.

Now, I commend the Congress for facing up to having a legalization plan. But I will not support a bill -- our immigration laws in this country always bring families together.

This separates families.

So the bill is tough on illegal immigrants. That's what makes it no amnesty. But it's too tough on illegal immigrants, that's what makes it unacceptable. Governor, you're going to have to come up with a better formulation than this.

As bad as Richardson was on this, he was topped by Biden who said he voted for last year's immigration-reform legislation which contained language for a 700-mile border fence because--well, let him explain it.

SEN. BIDEN: Well, that fence -- the reason I voted for the fence was that was the only alternative that was there, and I voted for the fence related to drugs. You can -- a fence will stop 20 kilos of cocaine coming through that fence. It will not stop someone climbing over it or around it.

That was one of the evening's dopiest statements. I envisioned hundreds of people each carrying some part of 20 kilos of cocaine getting over the fence.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut provided a wonderful example of why senators often don't elected president. They too often sound like senators. Check out this elliptical response by Dodd.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator Dodd, gas prices are at record-high levels. Granite Staters are frustrated. Americans are frustrated. What would you do to reduce gas prices?

SEN. DODD: Well, this is a major crisis issue, obviously. Energy-related problems, obviously, are problems with global warming; the dependency on the Middle East for so much of our energy supplies. It's a national security issue. It's a health care issue. The problems are profound here and require some very strong answers.

I also think this issue provides incredible opportunities for us to grapple with and deal with here, if we have the kind of strong leadership in the country. I believe we can make a difference here on reducing our dependency on those sources of energy while simultaneously rolling back the problems of global warming.

Today we have the solar -- polar caps, rather -- melting. We have greenhouse gases that are accumulating at record levels, way beyond expectations. We really have the dual responsibility here of reducing the polluting effects of depending upon fossil fuels and also allowing us to develop the alternative technologies that would allow us to move beyond this issue.

I've introduced a plan here that would require, by the year 2017, 50-miles-per-gallon standard for automobiles. I believe that can be done. We ought to do it immediately, in my view, and a carbon tax, in my view, so that you make these polluting dependencies, the polluting fuels more expensive and encourage then for the use of revenues collected to move aggressively on developing the alternative technologies of solar and wind and other sources of energy we could use.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you, Senator. But the question is, what would you do right now to reduce the price of gasoline?

SEN. DODD: Well, what we've offered already, in fact, and that is, of course, we ought to be saying here that when the price of a barrel of oil gets beyond $40 a barrel, where there's plenty of profit here, that those dollars ought to be returned to the consumers in a rebate or plowed back into the research that would allow us to develop alternative technologies.

But the real way to get away from this here, our dependency on that kind of fuel is causing us serious problems across the board. So it isn't just a price-of-fuel issue here. It's also depending upon polluting technologies that are going to cost us so much.

At the end of the debate, all the candidates were asked what they'd do in their first 100 days in office, a legacy of the flurry of activity in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first 100 days that all candidates from now till the end of the Republic are going to have to deal with.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland appeared to have even greater ambitions than Roosevelt who merely tried to get the country out of the Great Depression during his first 100 days.

MR. BLITZER: Congressman Kucinich, what would be your top priority?

REP. KUCINICH: Keep in mind, we could stop that war in Iraq now by not providing any funding.

But what I intend to do is to be a president who helps to reshape the world for peace, to work with all the leaders of the world in getting rid of nuclear weapons, rejecting policies that create war as an instrument of the diplomacy; making sure that we cause the nations of the world to come together for fair trade, cancel NAFTA, cancel the WTO, go back to bilateral trade conditioned on workers' rights, human rights; create a not-for-profit health care system. I'd send the bill to Congress.

And on the 101st day, I suppose he'd rest.

Former senator Mike Gravel from Alaska remained the candidate with the least chance of being president thus had little to lose by freely speaking his mind.

Asked if voting to authorize the war meant a candidate had forfeited the right to be president, he quite directly said yes.

MR. BLITZER: Senator Gravel, do you think someone who voted to authorize the president to go to war should be president of the United States?

MR. GRAVEL: Not at all, because it's a moral criteria. And there's information coming out -- Senator Durbin, Mr. Strum in his book -- that really points out that these people knew that there was two sets of intelligence going on at the same time, and they made a political decision to vote the way they voted, a political decision that cost -- stop and think, we have killed more Americans than was done in the 11th of September.

MR. BLITZER: When you say --

MR. GRAVEL: More Americans died because of their decision. That disqualifies them for president. It doesn't mean they're bad people, it just means that they don't have moral judgment, and that's very important when you become president.

Gravel also provided one of the funniest moments of the debate. If he became president (there's one of those hypotheticals Sen. Clinton hates so much) he was asked, how would he use former President Bill Clinton.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator Gravel, if you are elected president, how, if at all, would you use former President Bill Clinton in your administration? (Laughter.)

SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.)

MR. GRAVEL: How would I use him? I like Clinton as a roving ambassador around the world. He'd be good. He could take his wife with him, who will still be in the Senate. (Laughter.)

SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.)

MR. GRAVEL: And -- and -- but I'd be careful with the president, former president because I know he whimped out with respect to gays in the military. I can only wish that he had been like Harry Truman, who stood up to Omar Bradley when he integrated the services, which made possible for Colin Powell to now stare down the president of the United States when the president should have demanded immediate integration. That's what -- what can we do.

But under supervision, I think he'll do okay. (Laughter.)