Today on Blogcritics
Home » George and the Great Eight: Democrats Debate in Iowa

George and the Great Eight: Democrats Debate in Iowa

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

At the start of this morning's debate, George Stephanopoulos announced that Barack Obama led the pack in the Iowa polls, Hillary Clinton a close second. As the press and this writer have noted, Senator Obama has a target on his back. The first question was about him but not directed to him: “Is Obama ready to be president?”

The Democrats went on the attack: Senator Biden said he was not ready and then George asked Senator Clinton if Senator Obama was ready. She danced around that question (at first) by saying that she was there as a candidate, no negatives. It is important to note that except for Governor Richardson, the remainder has been or are senators. History does not show many examples of senators elected to the presidency. Hillary had this to say about Barack: “naïve and irresponsible — I don’t think a president should give away a ‘bargaining chip’ to anyone.” Barack body language was clear—he was ready for rebuttal.

The other candidates agreed that neither Barack nor anyone “should telegraph intent to our adversaries without precondition.” Dodd (who is polling zero in Iowa) said Obama was “confusing and confused.” Biden on Obama’s readiness: “It was about Pakistan. We have no Pakistan policy but a Musharraf policy. We should be encouraging free elections…I think he can be ready but he is not. There is no on-the-job training for the presidency.” Senator Obama took the criticism like a young Ted Kennedy with who faced a similar charge during his first election and went on to win.

When he was finally given the floor, Obama said: “To prepare for this debate I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair”…applause and laughter. Here are some of his words: “I think there is substantive difference when meeting with our adversaries. We tried the other way it didn’t work. If we have Osama Bin Laden in our sights and have exhausted other options we should take him out.” And he added: “We should describe to the people in debates what our position is about on foreign polity. Aggressive diplomacy…is going to make us safer.”

Next, a clip was shown of Clinton's comments on this same question of military aggression, made two years ago: “No option should be off the table, but I will take nuclear weapons off the table. The Bush administration tried to drum up support for military action for Iraq…bunker buster bombs…this was not a hypothetical…we shouldn’t use hypotheticals (sic)”  Obama defended himself by saying there was no difference between their views. “We do have to deal with that [military] problem…Invasion of Iraq has made worse.”

John Edwards asked to give his opinion (on the war): “How about a little hope and optimism? We have a clear path in Iran…(we should) work with our friends in Europe…Musharraf is not a wonderful leader but provides some stability. They have a nuclear weapon…in contention with India over Kashmir. It is not shocking that people in Washington are criticizing [Barack’s position]. Is he right or wrong? I think I would not talk about hypothetical(s) and nuclear weapons, because it limits your options.” 

No one agreed that Obama was right. Was he right? He was right. Gravel never held his tongue about the administration which is “’cooking the books’ on Iran. Resolution: Under no circumstances should you invade Iran.” He continued: “What about our destabilizing their government over the past 25 years. A plan the Neocons had back in 1997. They [Democrats] helped Vice President Cheney…who should be committed!”

Then Karl Rove's opinion was introduced from a transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show in which he discounted Clinton's electability: “There is no frontrunner who has gone into a presidency with as high negatives…nobody has ever won the presidency with that high a negative.” Democrats are afraid that Clinton will weigh down the Party. I too predict that the cause and effect of a Clinton candidacy for president could cause some Democrats to run for the door.

Obama followed with: “If you are tired of the backbiting and scorekeeping of DC…a common purpose and a common destiny. We are going to need somebody who can break out of the political patterns over the past 20 years. I’m your guy.”

It was John Edwards who reminded the panel how “in 2006 the dems stood for change. If we become the party of status quo, we will loose. Who’s most likely to bring about change? Take on the lobbyists. You cannot negotiate with them. You have to take their power away from them.” Hillary at some point remarked, “I find it interesting that Karl Rove is so obsessed with me. We know how to win. I had 18 wonderful years in Arkansas where the governor is going to endorse me. I know how to beat them. It [Rove’s criticism] doesn’t matter to me a bit. Of course, you are going to have high negatives.”

On the question of universal health care: Edwards said that the reason “we don’t have universal health care is because of the insurance industry and the drug lobbyists. We should make it clear that we are not going to take money from the drug company or the insurance industry. You can’t sit at the table and negotiate with them.” Dodd, an experienced politician (whom the Kennedys are said to endorse), makes good points. He said, “I brought Republicans to the table on a democratic principle (i.e., family leave act).” 

Iraq Out, Soldiers Out? 

Can the soldiers be out by December? This question Edwards answered first by saying that “any democratic president will end this war.” However, from listening to the candidates, it seems a clear consensus that exiting Iraq will not be easy, cheap or swift. We [leadership] cannot just go to Wal-Mart and order up a safe, cheap redeployment from Iraq. It seems clear that the quagmire of Iraq has gotten messier over the years, by design. “They [other candidates] cling to strategic mistakes.” said Senator Biden. “There is much more at stake here, how it ends.” He painted a picture of future disasters and said that, “we cannot be out by December.” Obama added much to the conversation “I think Joe is right on the issue how long is this going to take. I agree with John Edwards, all of us would bring this war to an end — I think it is going to be messy. I wish all the people on this stage had asked this question before we got in. Nobody had more experience than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld!” Good point, because Barack said big experience was not the answer. Obama made clear that the ones with the most experience made the biggest and the MOST mistakes.

George then directed the debate to the question of partition—does it make sense? Barack addressed this and said that Iraqis should decide if partition makes sense. Seems logical to me.  He said to “put pressure on Republicans to stop giving Bush a blank check. Begin an orderly phased withdrawal.” Dennis Kucinich wryly reminded, “It was a democratic senate, you voted for it. Dems have to stand up to the pledge we made in 2006, bring the troops home now. You cannot expect a new direction with the same kind of thinking…we cannot privatize Iraq’s oil.”

Wrapping up the debate was an emailed “personal God question:” Hillary said, “I don’t pretend to understand the wisdom or the power of God. I have relied on prayer in my life. I am very dependent on my faith and prayer is a big part of that.” The Democrats pray—okay. That’s a good thing. “Prayer only admits that you are not in control and that the prayer does not prevent bad things from happening,” good answer from Edwards.  

An email video came in probing truth telling: At what time did they not tell the whole truth? Edwards gave the best answer. He did not tell the whole truth in that he did not speak about his “deep turmoil” about voting for the Iraq war. Clinton said pretty much the same thing, she now regrets giving Bush the war vote because he misused it. Barack, strangely, talked about global warming not being talked about and did not actually answer the question. That was an obvious faux pas.

On performance-based pay: General comments were to give the benefits to teachers who go into the tough areas and not based on merit, this could make teachers bitter, and reform NCLB. Barack said to give the teachers more money, but also not have them spend time teaching to the test. Hillary said we are trying to change the culture within schools. Focus on kids who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. (That is already in place. There are pre-K schools in Texas where ONLY Spanish-speaking children are admitted. English-speaking children barred from such schools!) We have to know what questions to ask about schools and students left out or included. Who was for full-merit pay? That was dicey. It was unclear, and answers political. Gravel got riled up again, pointing and shouting at Obama and said, “Who are we going to nuke next?” (Translation: why is Obama for building up the military?) Gravel wants to know why not offer (paid for) education from kindergarten to college, as other countries do, for U.S. citizens.   

One of the final questions: Should they lower rates for everyone, and not just banks? He asked for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. That was not easy. Richardson said this was “the Katrina of the mortgage lending business” wow—that bad. Gravel kept up the verbal finger pointing. Joe Biden brought up the hedge funds and Gravel said, “Follow the money of those on the stage!” Most agreed that more liquidity was needed. The debate closed with comments from each on how they came to this moment as a presidential candidate, their time to give personal glimpses.

Overall, the debate was more fired-up because the frontrunners are so far out in front! Obama now in first place, Clinton second followed by Edwards and the others all the way down to a zero polling by Dodd. I enjoyed the banter and the volley of Q&A much better focused for this debate. But it still felt like the other debates because the same eight people are there, many saying the same darn things, great things or not. They were scripted and a little stale. I think a winnowed field is on the horizon especially in light of primaries which have been moved up earlier than ever.

Powered by

About Heloise

  • Lumpy

    Calling these candidates who run the gamut from boring to repugnant the ‘great eight’ is truly an expression of pure absurdism.

  • http://www.blacks4barack.homestead.com Greg Jones

    Al Sharpton..Jesse Jackson..Black Leaders;
    Time to Lead for BARACK !
    Greg ‘Peace Song’ Jones

    I regularly listen to talk radio ranging from Air America, which is more progressive or Democratic…to Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved which are Republican….and black radio particularly Warren Ballentine and Rev. Al Sharpton on the Radio 1 Network which is doing a great job of reaching the black community and creating an opportunity for voices nationwide to be heard.
    I find it interesting to hear the different views from the hosts….as well as callers nationwide…on the subject of Barack Obama for President. Many of the hosts, even callers, on both Air America and the Republican shows voice massive approval and support of Barack Obama. It’s actually quite refreshing to see and hear that so many white Americans are ready for a black president, basically because they feel he is the best choice regarding the issues of America and the world. Now, that’s progress.
    Then I listen to the Rev. Al Sharpton. First of all, let me state that I greatly admire Rev. Sharpton. The work that he does through his National Action Network is developing into becoming a mighty force in the black community nationwide and I feel that all blacks should be supportive of NAN. But when I listen to Rev. Sharpton talk about Barack Obama’s presidential campaign I am totally amazed, shocked and beyond extremely disappointed. I’m almost embarrassed. Here we have Rev. Sharpton, who many blacks, including myself, look at as the number one leader for justice and empowerment in the black community…..and here we have a black man…Barack Obama…who is a very serious, capable, qualified candidate for President of the United States, supported by millions nationwide, with a realistic chance to enter the White House. But instead of rallying, supporting and stating this black historic opportunity as it is….Rev. Sharpton would rather not express his support of Obama at a ll !!! What’s wrong with this picture ? I cannot believe that the leader(s) of the black community like Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson are NOT supportive of what could be the first black president of the United States, ever? That is crazy !!!! (note: Rev. Jackson has quietly declared that he is supporting Obama but has done little or nothing to rally the black community….while polls show Hillary currently receiving more black support than Obama !…..That’s CRAZY !) We, as blacks, know that in order for the black communities to rise up out of the muck and mire that permeates, we must all work together….as a family. We know that we always preach that we should be supportive of black achievement, black businesses, our black youth and each other.
    If that is the case, that we are to be supportive of each other, which I do believe that to be true, then never has that need been more evident than now. ALL black people should be in absolute support of Barack Obama for President, not just because he’s black, but because of his stance, capabilities and qualifications. This should be a period of rallying in the streets, shouting with pride that we have a true opportunity to change history and put a black man in the White House. And this rally cry should be lead by our leaders.
    Yes, Rev. Al, Rev. Jackson, the NAACP…ALL black leaders should be sounding the trumpet to inspire all black people to vote for this historic change. Why aren’t they ? Rev. Al states that he hasn’t heard enough from Obama regarding the issues to make a decision. I find that a bit disingenuous seeing as to how I know where Obama stands on the various issues….and so do the millions of white Obama supporters. Rev. Al also says that Obama may not have enough experience. I find that to be a sadly interesting comment, particularly considering both Rev. Al and Rev. Jackson ran for President with absolutely NO political experience, but never stated that they were too new for the post. (NOTE: Rev. Al knows that Barack Obama has been a U.S. Senator for over 2 years…..and that Abraham Lincoln was a Senator for 2 years….and turned out to be considered one of the greatest Presidents of all time). Rev. Al also states that he is not hearing enough talk from Obama regarding specifically what he will do for the black community. Now common sense should tell all black folks that Obama has to play the political game. Keep in mind, he is running for president of the United States…that means everyone, black, white, hispanic, muslim, jews,and all others.
    Obama cannot appear as if he will only be concerned with the black community’s needs or he has absolutely no chance of winning. Maybe that’s where Rev. Al went wrong with his campaign. Does Rev. Al think that Obama should be shouting ‘ungawa…Black Power’ during each debate ? There is no way that he could do that and expect to win. But once he is President, common sense tells us that he would be more receptive to the needs in the black community than any other candidate. That’s just common sense based on what we DO know about Obama. Then some folks want to say he’s not ‘black enough’. That is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard. First of all, his name is Barack Obama……not like Jesse or Al. Secondly, Obama is half Kenyan…..that’s pretty black !!! Sometimes I just wonder to myself, why aren’t Rev. Al and Rev. Jackson leading the rally to support this historic cause ? Could they be jealous that Obama has already achieved more acceptance than they did during their campaign efforts ? I would hate to think that to be the fact. Or, could Rev. Al be hopeful that Hillary will win because he feels that she will assist him in his personal efforts if she is elected President ? I hope that too is not the case…..that would be selling out…..and I would never believe our leader(s) to be sell-outs. But for our leaders to not boisterously support Obama is like saying that they feel a white person would do better or more for the black communities, which history has proven is just not the case. Then what can it be ? That is the question.
    I believe that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be very proud and thankful to see that, in spite of all of the weights that have burdened and held the black community down, one black man has risen to such a level that he is a viable choice to be President of the United States in 2008. I believe that Rev. King would truly lead a powerful movement to change the tide of history. I envision marches, flags, signs, songs, t-shirts, buttons and millions of blacks proudly expressing jubilee for this opportunity to make a real change in our country.
    WE SHALL OVERCOME….has been our motto for the black struggle for many generations and we are still struggling, in oh so many ways. And we will never overcome, until our leaders wake up, stop ‘hatin’ and vigorously lead the cause that will truly make a positive difference in our country, in our black community, and in the entire world. Rev. Al….Rev. Jackson….love ya’ both….but on this subject… It’s Time To LEAD !!!
    (Greg ‘Peace Song’ Jones)
    http://www.blacks4barack.homestead.com

    (30)
    Greg Jones
    P.O. Box 43678
    Cleveland, Ohio 44143

  • vwcat

    Gregg, Sharpton is a total Hillarybot. Why he is not just saying so is because he knows he would be derided for it. But, everything is all Clinton all the time. he believes Bill is really the black president and will never change.
    Unfortunately, Al Sharpton, has become more about himself as time goes on.
    I do believe he is extreemly jealous of Obama. You can see it in his eyes. In the way his face gets set when Obama is mentioned.
    Obama has come out of nowhere so fast and has become the voice for the younger generation of African Americans. His popularity with other races is something Sharpton has never enjoyed. he is angry because Obama is fast becoming a voice for all people.
    He feels the same way some of John Edwards supporters feel. they view Obama as some snot nosed kid who has usurped their rightful place as they see it. that Obama has not paid his dues.
    it is the same with the Clintons who have an obsessive dislike of Obama.
    today on MSNBC, her advisor Terry Mcauliff said the reason for voting for Hillary is that it is her turn to be president. This is telling. Her turn. Same with those who are trying to undermine the Obama effect. They see it as their turn as they have been around awhile.
    But, they also envy Obama’s incredible charisma and the love the people of all ages and races have for him. I think as time goes on he will replace Bill Clinton as the most beloved democrat. But, this is because underneath, there was always something opportunistic and corrupt about Clinton that people felt. That he was play acting and really did not care. Obama is authentic. His care and concern for people is genuine. He is honest and decent. He became this loved figure without pretending or compromised on his values or ethics. This is the real deal people have searched and waited for. And now that he is here, people are confused or jealous or cynical about it.
    Once Hillary and to some extent, Bill, have been around all the time like now people will remember the exhausted and disillusioned feeling they developed in the 90s. They will remember feeling let down and lied to and the anger after so much lying and corruption. they will remember how the
    Clintons sold out the working and middle class.
    And they will look to Obama and see his is for real and won’t let them down.