Democratic Debate -- The Wrap-Up
Carson City, Nevada
The line of the day at Wednesday’s Democratic presidential candidate forum came from former Senator John Edwards. When asked if he was afraid that voters would suffer “election fatigue†given that this first debate was taking place more than 600 days before the actual November 2008 balloting, Edwards responded: “I’ll tell you why there won’t be any fatigue. There won’t be any because right now hardly anyone is paying attention.â€
No doubt Edwards is right. While lots os Americans are feeling quite passionate, most would be hard pressed to offer you many details on how one of these Democratic candidates differs from the others.
And if they had sat through today’s two hour parade of Democratic contenders, it’s unlikely they would have any sharper of a notion.
What heat there was, if any, sparked between the two most prominent candidates who showed up: Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (Barack Obama was the only candidate who didn’t attend). In the strange format imposed by the union sponsors of the forum, each candidate appeared separately, gave a short talk, and then took a few questions from ABC’s George Stephanopolous.
“Let’s begin with Iraq,†were the first words out of his mouth as Hillary sat down with him. Her 3 minute opening talk completely omitted any mention of the conflict and focused instead on broad promises of universal health care and college education if elected. “â€Why wasn’t your vote a mistake?†he asked.
Hillary stuck to her previous statements, “accepting responsibility†for her 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq but not saying she was wrong.. “My vote ws a sincere vote based on the facts I had at the time. I’ve accepted responsibility for it and don’t think any of us should get a free pass… now we have to force the President to change direction,†she said. “People ask me, well, why don’t I want to cut off money to the American troops. But I want to cut off money to the Iraqi troops. They’re not standing up and getting the job done.â€
When Edwards spoke a few minutes later, he seemed to aim his rhetorical barrels right at Clinton, emphasizing repeatedly how he was, indeed, wrong to have voted for authorization of the war. “I should have never given George Bush authorization,†he said. Arguing that America needs a president who can is “honest, open, and moral†he said that after 6 years of Bush not taking responsibility for the war, it was no longer acceptable to dance around the issue as he implied Hillary was doing.
“It’s not enough to debate, give speeches and pass non-binding resolutions, we have to stop George w. Bush’s war,†he said.â€We should start leaving now.â€
The fomer vice-presidential candidate took another indirect swipe at Clinton, mocking her promise to achieve universal health care by the end of her second term and her suggestion that such a program might be funded without tax increases. “I don’t want to wait 6 or 8 years,†he said. “I want to start the day after I enter the White House.†And anyone who says universal coverage can be had with increased revenueâ€might be wanting to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.â€
Candidates Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Vilsack and former Senator Mike Gravel also appeared.
It’s doubtful whether any of these second – and third—tier candidates made any measurable advance at today’s event. Dodd, who was the lead-off speaker, seemed to have no rationale for his candidacy other than that he’s a senior senator with lots of experience. I vote him best candidate for a casual, relaxed after-dinner speech. My pal, Bill Bradley had a similar reaction to the affable Bill Richardson. “He’d make a great golf commentator,†Bradley said of the New Mexico governor. “He’s got the right tan, a nice blazer and those pressed khakis.â€
Biden kept it short and sweet and succeeded in not uttering any of his trademark gaffes. He focused on his own plan for Iraq, a plan for partition, er, I mean “decentralization.†I don't know a single person who takes his candidacy as anything other than a job application for Secretary of State.
I will admit to having missed the presentation by former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Because of the way the forum was organized, I was in the “spin room†waiting for Hillary Clinton to talk to us when Vilsack was on stage but, guess what? Of all the candidates, she was the only one who ditched the media, not exactly aiding her rather frosty image.
Don’t think I missed much from Vilsack though the reporter from the Des Moines Register (who was sitting next to me) said the former governor came up with a new proposal to take money from the war and redeploy it toward renewable energy development. OK, by me. I also missed the talk by Mike Gravel I was backstage with Richardson trying to find out exactly why he was running.
Dennis Kucinich got his licks in, trashing all the other candidates. “It must be hard for these politicians to say they were misled, tricked and deceived by George w. Bush,†referring to their positions on the war in Iraq. “Here’s one who wasn’t. I organized 125 Democrats in Congress to oppose the war and I saw all the same information these other candidates did.â€
It’s a fair enough point by Kucinich. He then ended his talk by saying he was the only candidate who had no strings attached to him. Then he lifted his arms up to his shoulders and slowly twirled around on stage repeating: “No strings. No strings. No strings.â€
No comment.
I did catch up with Edwards after his talk and asked him why he and other Democratic candidates were so averse to simply stating they were for “withdrawal†rather than “redeployment†from Iraq. His answer: “The world is more complicated than that,†he said. Some troops might have to be kept ready to intervene in case of a “genocide†in the aftermath, others might be sent to Afghanistan, still others might be deployed elsewhere in the Gulf, he said.
Not much was resolved in today’s beauty pageant. But no question this forum has put Nevada on the political map. Next month the SEIU health care union is sponsoring a second forum in Las Vegas and I suspect there will be a good turnout of candidates. We know Obama has to come because he didn’t show up today. Let’s hope the format will be more freewheeling and will allow the candidates to get more up close and personal. Some blood on the floor might make things more interesting.
Photos: John Edwards; Media waiting for no-show Hillary
February 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pm
If you’ll forgive a slight departure from the particular purpose of this post, this clip explains the term Booger Eating Democrats.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Woody…If a Republican pick his nose and pulled out a ten pound booger…his head would collapse.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Edwards is right of course. But if anyone watched the majority of the debates in 2004 they would have had a pretty good idea of where the candidates stood. Problem is few did or had the time to do so. But this field is more interesting and has to be a lot better if only for the absence of Al Sharpton.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Wow. Kucinich kabuki!
February 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I am wondering why (or maybe you did and are holding back) you didn’t press John Edwards as to what the meant by a “genocide” in the region?
You’ve got to love Kucinich, dippy new ager that he is with his twirls and ventriloquism. He’s the only one with the right ideas. In a system without corporate fundraising, he’d probably be the candidate because his views are by far the closest to the Democratic base.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Unbelievable. Do the $10 hookers in the media hunger so shamelessly for some political drivel that they will put up with this pathetic maniuplation forever? What a commentary on the sheeplike nature of these entities. Has any reporter or media organization ever actually REFUSED to be ‘handled’ in this way? This is even more appalling than the sludge they throw at us after the ‘events’. How about pretending NOT to be a journalist and getting a seat among the actual audience? If it were happening at Itar-Tass in the former Soviet Union, we could laugh.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Nice taking a stab at Kucinich over his puppet strings display. The man may be a bit eccentric, but as you yourself said he made a good point. There were quite a number of Democrats in the House of Representatives, including Dennis, who weren’t fooled for a moment by the lies coming out of the White House.
What I suppose is most disturbing about your post is that you so casually dismiss what candidates like Dodd and Richardson have to say. Dodd is running on a platform of restoring the Constitution, while Richardson has experience as an executive (something once preferred in presidential candidates). If your biggest impression of either of these two is that they had nice tans or that they were snappy dressers, then you’re in the wrong business. Were you even listening to what the candidates were actually saying? WAKE UP! PAY ATTENTION NEXT TIME! THERE WILL BE A TEST! It is a sad day in this country when people with real talent and ideas are ignored in favor of “celebrity” politicians who make headlines by being newcomers or by having loads of baggage attached to their names.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:04 pm
This is a booger eating possible war criminal former US Secretary of State.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Dennis is Al in whiteface.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Dodd and Richardson, like Kucinich, stand no chance of being winning the Presidency and know it, as indicated by their casual behaviors.
One way to prevent this time wasting, attention getting respites from their real jobs, is to require any politician that has declared themselves as a candidate for another political office, to resign their current on first. Out of respect for their current constituents who are paying their salary to do the job they already have.
This way, more time could have been devoted to those who were really serious about winning the most powerful position in the free world.
I agree with Marc’s take. Under the circustances, it didn’t look like that way.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Vilsack gave us a Jimmy Carter/Reagan debate moment with his revelation of the 10 year old boy telling him how the war in Iraq frightened him, and this is the reason we have to leave now.
Jesus help us. We’re gonna need it.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Jim R: shouldn’t you be spending a little more time lowering expectations for the GOP candidates and a little less dispensing wannabe trite cant about the Democrats?
February 21st, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Did you watch the Debates……uh, conversations, Bunker? I was being serious, not trite.
I admit I was less frightened after watching this show. I can’t wait to see what’s left after professional Executives Gulliani or Romney get hold of any one of them. It will be both bloody and embarassing.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 am
The Department of Defense has identified 3,136 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
AHLQUIST, Clinton W., 23, Sgt., Marines; Creede, Colo.; First Marine Division.
ESCALANTE, Brian A., 25, Lance Cpl., Marines; Dodge City, Kan.; First Marine Division.
HOWEY, Blake H., 20, Lance Cpl., Marines; Glendora, Calif.; First Marine Division.
SIEBERT, Todd M., 34, Capt., Marines; Baden, Pa.; Second Marine Division.
WITTEVEEN, Brett A., 20, Pfc., Marines; Shelby, Mich.; Fourth Marine Division.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 am
Michael Kwiatkowski:
I take no ’stab’ at Kucinich. I credit him for what he said. And then I accurately describe his behavior on camera. If his twirling and chanting makes you uncomfortable, direct your comments to him — not me.
Senators Dodd and Biden are intelligent men who in certain circumstances have some contributions to make. if you find them credible presidential candidates, that’s your right. I dont.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 am
Edwards: Some troops might have to be kept ready to intervene in case of a “genocide†in the aftermath…
Ya think?
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 am
Dennis, babe, less is more. The “no strings” line was cute, but don’t say it over and over, it looks like your chanting, and when you twirl around like that it looks like your trying to get back to OZ.
Actually, the most interesting thing so far about the campaign is the bracing, open white racism from Republicans like Rush, Beck, and Jim R. “Al in whiteface?” Jim R is just wink to his base, and we’ll see plenty of that. The question is, how often will “progressives” call them on it.
We shall see, by the way, how Rudy’s line about 9-11, “the first think I thought was “thank God George Bush is President” plays this time around.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 am
GM inadvertently reitterated my question ot Marc….what did John Edwards mean by “genocide?”
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Maybe when Edwards said “genocide”, he meant something like this:
“… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
[CPCCG definition]
In the Iraq context, he probably meant the obvious: large-scale systematic slaughter. I’m surprised you can even find a nit to pick in this one.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 am
I work right across the street from the community center where the forum took place. I’m glad Carson City had its fifteen minutes of fame yesterday, because all those who participated will be forgotten on 11/5/08.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 am
Any questions about Iran?
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 am
I’ll always find a nit to pick with slimey, dishonest poseurs who want to manipulate Americans into thinking they are anti-war.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
“Marc Cooper Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 am
Michael Kwiatkowski:
I take no ’stab’ at Kucinich. I credit him for what he said. And then I accurately describe his behavior on camera. If his twirling and chanting makes you uncomfortable, direct your comments to him — not me.
Senators Dodd and Biden are intelligent men who in certain circumstances have some contributions to make. if you find them credible presidential candidates, that’s your right. I dont. ”
It might have served you better to be more substantial in your writing, otherwise I might have had kinder words for your piece. The issue I take with your column is that you utterly failed to address the meat of the candidates’ words, focusing instead on inconsequential details. WHY do these candidates “have no chance?” You never explained that. What is your opinion of their positions? Why do you hold that opinion?
The awful thing about today’s politics is that so-called front-runner candidates gain their status not for their platforms or their demonstrated knowledge (or lack thereof), but on their “star power.” Hillary is famous for her husband’s status as a former president with a lot of baggage. Obama seems to be a “flavor of the month” candidate viewed favorably because…why, exactly? What is it that separates him from Carol Mosley-Braun, for example? If you’re going on qualifications, Ms. Mosley-Braun’s foreign service experience certainly puts her above Obama.
But you addressed none of this in your column. Substance wins over style, Mr. Cooper. You might do well to remember that.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 am
There is some evidence that Richardson is attracing some attention and may be the “dark horse” to watch. I basically agree on the others. Dennis Kucinich is important because he will raise issues that the others won’t but I really don’t see him (or Mike Gravel) as more than protest candidates. As for Vilsack, Biden, and Dodd. Nice guys but really, why? What is the rational for their campaigns?
Hillary will have real problems with the base. She cannot escape her vote for the war and, unlike Edwards, refuses to say it was a mistake. And her saying that only she understands terrorism and that her vote was because of 9/11 puts her in Bush Terrotory. She has a lot of money and that will keep her going but I keep thinking of John Connelly. He had a lot of money too and it got him one delegate. Hil will do better than that but I would not be surprised if she falls flat on her face. Getting mad at Barack Obama for what David Geffen said and asking Obama to apologize and give back the money suggests a thin skin and poor judgement. I think she will be toast.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
“richard locicero Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 am
There is some evidence that Richardson is attracing some attention and may be the “dark horse†to watch. I basically agree on the others. Dennis Kucinich is important because he will raise issues that the others won’t but I really don’t see him (or Mike Gravel) as more than protest candidates. As for Vilsack, Biden, and Dodd. Nice guys but really, why? What is the rational for their campaigns?
Hillary will have real problems with the base. She cannot escape her vote for the war and, unlike Edwards, refuses to say it was a mistake. And her saying that only she understands terrorism and that her vote was because of 9/11 puts her in Bush Terrotory. She has a lot of money and that will keep her going but I keep thinking of John Connelly. He had a lot of money too and it got him one delegate. Hil will do better than that but I would not be surprised if she falls flat on her face. Getting mad at Barack Obama for what David Geffen said and asking Obama to apologize and give back the money suggests a thin skin and poor judgement. I think she will be toast.”
I agree, I think Richardson could be a Dark Horse candidate if he plays his cards right. His experience as governor, which used to be considered a plus for those seeking the nation’s highest executive office, could benefit him more than most people seem to think. I was reading somewhere that he has developed a reputation as a progressive who has demonstrated an ability to appeal to many Republicans because of his ability to reach out and appeal to common values held by liberals and conservatives alike. While this may turn off many progressive voters, people hoping for someone with a reputation for true bipartisanship could find Richardson more to their liking.
I think Kucinich, as you said, probably won’t win but he will say things in the debates the others are too afraid to come right out and say themselves. In that regard, his candidacy has the advantage of raising issues that would otherwise go ignored. I know it’s early, and chances are I could be proven wrong, but I think Clinton will flame out early like Howard Dean. It will probably come down to Edwards, Richardson or Obama. And if the nominee is one of those three, I’m hoping he’ll pick Kucinich as his running mate. I think we need a progressive voice in the White House.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
“…the bracing, open white racism from Republicans like Rush, Beck, and Jim R. “Al in whiteface?â€
K, K, K. Geeze. I was referring to Al and Dennis’s similar personaes silly, their color being the only difference of course. If you see this as bracing and open racism, then I would say the bias lies with you…..a typical lefty looking for a victim to defend.
Believe me, Al certainly does not need, or want your defense. He is more than capable of defending himself. But I’m sure from your left view of blacks, it’s doubtful.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
Michael K had me till he advocated Kuchinch as a VP candidate. But I’ve got a feeling that Richardson will be on the ticket.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:19 am
I think Tom Vilsack dropped out this morning. Now if only Al ore would dropin!
Sigh!
February 24th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Incidentally, the format was not imposed by the union sponsors, but, I’m told by the actual organizers, by the candidates themselves.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
richard l. hit the VP candidate…Richardson. He does have executive experience as well as foreign policy. The reason he will be VP and not Pres nominee is his baggage associated with the Clintons.
I read a story on reviewjournal.com that discussed the topic of the lefty bloggers trying to convince the the Dem party to bail on the FSN partnership and, incidentally, explains why the party did the deal in the first place. The following is in reference to a previous post by MC…”Why not FOX?”
In pertinent part – quote of the article:
“State party Chairman Tom Collins sent a lengthy e-mail to members Friday evening seeking to assuage their concerns.
… (skipped two paragraphs)…
“You may not agree with us, but trust that this is not a sell-out or a cave-in to the lures of Fox. This is how we will win over new voters.”
Dems don’t believe many of their members watch FSN, therefore, they have a chance to reach ‘new voters’. FSN gets the ratings boost. Both “make more money” whether by advertising or by garnering new votes. This confirms my reasoning as to the Why question earlier. Dems also get the bonus in this case of stirring up the left of left base to draw even more attention to their candidates and party.
The fact is, this forum and debate mean very little in the political life of the ‘08 campaign. The reality is Hil will be the Dem nom…no matter what BHO does…or, for that matter, what any of the others do.
So, Marc’s summary and perfunctory dismissal of several candidates is spot on. I would go even further and dismiss Edwards as anything other than a campaign hangnail.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
[...] heavens there are less than two weeks left to this campaign. I remember, barely, going to the first of the candidates forums back in February of 2007 — almost two years [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:24 am
hello kitty birthday party idea 9137
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
cheap generic cialis
cialis vs viagara
cialis mail order medication
mixing effexor with cialis
buy cialis free shipping
cialis package insert
cialis tadalafil canadian
cialis and south africa
canadian cialis
perscription cialis
cialis dosing information
cialis and hepetitis
viagra cialis delivery
red devil cialis
cialis how to prescribe
brand cialis name
cialis warning
compare viagra cialis levitra
cialis keyword
cialis pictures results
u 222 cialis
1what is cialis
generic cialis pharmaceutical manufacturer
Cialis it is useful in application. The recommended doze of a preparation makes 20 mg. Cialis admit up front to be to come bodily venture irrespective of do of food. Cialis it is sine qua non to use at least 16 minutes till to incipient carnal activity. Patients can cut out have a go of the prurient certificate at any heretofore, within 36 hours, after welcome Cialis. As much as usable recommended frequency of orifice – 1 but day.