« Predicting The Iowa Caucus | Main | Fox News Republican Debate - January 6, 2008 »
ABC Facebook Democratic Debate - January 5, 2008
By Bill | January 5, 2008 | Email This Post
On January 5, 2008, three days before the New Hampshire primaries, ABC hosted back-to-back Democratic and Republican debates at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. The moderator was Charlie Gibson, assisted by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos I’m watching and blogging this as it happens, so my reactions are coming out as they happen with minimal editing - my apologies in advance for any grammatical or other similar errors. I don’t claim that this represents everything the candidates said, but I believe this is an accurate and fair summary of the major points. My goal is to provide a largely unfiltered representation of what the candidates said, but I can’t resist commenting along the way, so my editorial comments are in italics.
The Democrats are going second tonight… let’s get started, shall we?
Incidentally, this debate is airing opposite the Pittsburgh/Jacksonville NFL wild card game. There’s something basically UnAmerican about having to choose between the two. 
Ah, well… the debate it is. (I know, I know, I’m like five years late for having a Tivo… doesn’t matter. I wouldn’t watch either if it wasn’t live, anyway.)
Hillary Clinton:
- Believes we need more NATO troops and greater efforts to train personnel in Afghanistan to pursue bin Laden. We must be ready to respond to actionable intelligence that bin Laden is in Pakistan, but should notify Pakistan after the missiles are in the air because of the sensitivity of their situation with India. Clinton would try to get Musharraf to share responsibility for the security of their nuclear materials with the United States. Blames Bush for ignoring the issue.
- Believes we must retaliate against any nation that provided a safe haven for any terrorists that strike America with a nuclear device. Believes that deterrence worked during the cold war because the Soviets understood the consequences of attacking us. (My comment: and the Soviets behaved logically. Will the terrorists?)
- When asked about Obama, Clinton said she believes that all the Democratic candidates are “advocating for change.” Quotes the AP by saying that Obama could have a debate with himself, because of position changes over the years. Says we need a President such that people should always know where they stand.
- Says that while Obama mandates health care for children, he stops short of mandating it for everyone. Obama responds that the distinction is that children have no choice in the matter, and that since his plan makes insurance affordable, adults will naturally choose to buy it for themselves.
- Doesn’t believe the surge in Iraq has worked, in the sense that the Iraqi government is in no better shape now than it was when the surge began.
- Even though we need to get out of Iraq, we can’t predict what the consequences might be, and must do significant preparation to answer these questions.
- Humorously said that the fact that New Hampshire voters like Obama more than her “Hurts her feelings,” but that she’ll “try to go on.” Obama jokingly responds: “You’re likable enough.”
- Says that she believes that she is an agent of change, saying that being the first woman to be elected President would be quite a change. (Opinion: after a few days of Clinton trying to answer this issue, this was a very good response.)
- Clinton called for a “reality break,” saying that the Patient Bill of Rights that Edwards cited never actually made it into law (Edwards: “Because George Bush Killed It”) and that the chair of Obama’s Illinois campaign is a lobbyist (to which Obama said: “not true.)
- “I’ve been an agent of change” … and cites her experience in working toward education and health care reform.
- When Gibson suggests that change in Washington may be difficult or impossible, Clinton comes out in defense of her husband’s record in accomplishing it.
- Believes America is heading toward a recession, and that we can use energy policy to jump-start a recovery.
- Would eliminate George W. Bush’s tax breaks for families making over $250,000. (Though she didn’t answer Gibson’s question about taking money out of the economy.)
- When asked one thing out of all the debates that she said that she regrets, chooses instead to highlight the differences between the Republican and Democratic debates.
John Edwards:
- Would go get Osama Bin Laden no matter where he was hiding when found. Believes that the larger question is how do we address the big picture of nuclear proliferation on a long term basis, rather than the ad hoc policy we currently have. Would like to lead the world in an effort to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
- Says after a potential nuclear attack on an American city, the first priority would be to go after those responsible, but also not to exacerbate the situation with rhetoric.
- Edwards weighs in on the Obama/Clinton dust-up, saying that when you stand up for change the status quo naturally attacks you. An Edwards/Obama alliance looks like it’s forming here…
- Believes that there are entrenched, well-financed special interests, and it’s hard to take them on when they support you.
- As President, would listen to his military commanders, but ultimately would make policy decisions on Iraq based on what’s best for America. He will end combat missions in Iraq in the first year of his Presidency.
- As President, there will be no lobbyists working in his White House. The battle against special interests is “deep inside me, and personal” in part because of his family’s blue collar background.
- Asked to highlight his Senate career, Edwards citied his experience in writing the Patients Bill of Rights with John McCain and Ted Kennedy.
- On special interests: we have to bring America together, but “you can’t nice these people to death.”
- America’s trade and tax policy is “bleeding American jobs”
Barack Obama:
- Stands by his statement that he would pursue Al Queda into Pakistan unilaterally, if necessary, but says that this statement is not the same as the Bush doctrine. Would prefer to work with the Pakistanis. Mentioned his work in the Senate to limit nuclear proliferation.
- Believes that failures in Afghanistan and Pakistan were partly caused by being distracted by a “war of choice” in Iraq.
- The first priority after a theoretical nuclear attack on an American city would be retaliation.
- One of the biggest changes that’s called for is to enlist the American people in the process of self-government by making the government transparent and accountable.
- Doesn’t believe the surge in Iraq has worked, and that we need to begin a phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq. Believes the reduction in violence in Iraq is in part a result of the Democratic victories in the United States Congress, which made the Iraqis realize that American troops would not be there forever.
- Says he was splitting his time between watching the earlier Republican debate and watching football. (And he knew that the Redskins lost. Regular-guy points never hurt in this kind of race.)
- Agrees with Richardson that a cap-and-trade system is preferable to a carbon tax, along with an auction on carbon emission rights. We also have to ask the American people to change how we use energy, naming specifically changing the type of light bulbs we use and adding insulation to houses.
- We have had a top-down agenda, rather than the policy of bottom-up economic growth that we ought to have.
Bill Richardson:
- Would depend on diplomacy first to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but take other steps if necessary. Says that Pakistan has not done enough to pursue Al Queda, despite the eleven billion dollars we have given them (my comment: really? That’s all? I’m surprised we didn’t spend a heck of a lot more for such a key country.) Richardson would ask Musharraf to step aside. Despite all that, Richardson would pursue Bin Laden if he had actionable intelligence.
- Believes we must remember history, and likens our support of Musharraf with our support of the Shah of Iran, which resulted in the problems we are having with that country today.
- Stands clear of the Clinton/Obama/Edwards scuffle, saying “I’ve been in hostage negotiations that were more civil than this.”
- Believes the surge in Iraq has not worked, because nothing long term has been achieved. Until we solve the Iraq problem, we can’t fix the problems we need to address here. Believes we should bring all the troops home in a year.
- Emotionally says he’s “sick” of flying flags at half mast when someone is killed in Iraq.
- Says that previous executive experience is helpful, and that he’s the only governor present on the stage, the one that’s balanced a budget, cut taxes, reformed insurance, etc.
- Mentions that the questioner did not name him as he read poll results, to which Obama jokingly interjected “Did that hurt your feelings?” (Referencing Hillary’s earlier comment.)
- We need to reduce fossil fuel use by 50% by 2020. Al Gore deserves his Nobel prize, but Richardson is glad Gore stayed out of the race.
- JFK is Richardson’s hero, and using him as an example Richardson doesn’t think that relative youth is terribly important in electing a President.
- Richardson says that, if elected, his Cabinet will include Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. (”Now, I won’t overdo it with the Republicans.”)
- Thinks a carbon tax is a bad idea, because it’s not a mandate. Favors a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions.
- We’ve got to balance the budget, add a line item veto, and get rid of corporate welfare. Improve schools, invest in science and math, have arts in the school.
- Richardson says that out of all the statements he’s made in the debates that he regrets, he wishes he had not admired a Supreme Court justice that was against Roe v. Wade and civil rights.
Summary/Comments:
- The early story, of course, will be how Hillary Clinton responds to the warning shot given to her by Iowa.
- Remember how, early on in the campaign, Hillary Clinton announce that she would go back to being called “Hillary Rodham Clinton?” What ever happened to that?
- First question: How aggressively would you go after Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan?
- Obama is first to answer, and sounds hoarse… a lot of cheering in the last three days?
- Wow, Richardson sounds hoarse, too… can’t be from cheering, though. Is it cold and flu season in New Hampshire?
- Gibson asks a chilling question about a nuclear attack on an American city, which he says experts give up to a 50% chance within the next ten years… yikes.
- Hillary said Obama changes position too frequently? Is she sure she wants to do that?
- Clinton and Obama had an exchange about their differences on health care; my assessment is that Obama very clearly came out on top, by a large margin.
- Clinton’s hoarse, too… rigors of the campaign, I guess.
- Charlie’s glasses look like they’re about to fall off… blooper reel, anyone?
- He is asking a reasonably tough question about the surge, though… didn’t really expect that. (Not a shot at Charlie, just TV news in general.)
- The likability question seemed to throw Clinton for a moment.
- Edwards just invoked Theodore Roosevelt as an example of change… any TR reference gets points from me.
- All right, the debate is over…
- Winner: John Edwards. Bill Richardson also did quite well, although it probably won’t help him win the election. Obama wasn’t spectacular, but did all he needed to do. Hillary didn’t lose, exactly, but neither did she do enough to win (which, in Presidential politics, amounts to a loss.)
- Loser: nobody completely blew it.
- I was disappointed that Gibson didn’t ask about the Iowa results.
- Clinton did well when she was detailing policy, and by far her best moment of the night was her vigorous defense of Bill Clinton’s record. She didn’t do nearly as well when responding to direct attacks. She seemed nearly ready to lose it at one point when Edwards accused her of being the status quo.
- Richardson did a good job of laying out his qualifications while remaining above the fray.
- Edwards comments about special interests were especially passionate tonight, and I think to good effect.
- Obama seemed the most “Presidential.”
- Edwards clearly is on Obama’s side at the moment, and defended him against both Clinton and at least one of Gibson’s questions. I don’t know if this is a formal arrangement, or if the two of them have independently decided that the best chance they both have is to stop her electoral campaign in its infancy. The dynamic here is beat Hillary and worry about each other later.
- I generally think this was more interesting than the Republican debate was, for whatever that’s worth.
- That’s it for tonight… these are getting downright fun. But now, Jacksonville leads Pittsburgh 28-17 going into the fourth quarter, I’m off to watch the rest.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:20 am
It was a refreshing format where the candidates
could respond at length to one another. I thought
Hillary appeared too strident in trying to attack Obama,
instead of just presenting her policy points. That is her
strength, but now she seems desperate to
recover from her Iowa defeat.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:25 am
hi does anyone know what channel the Dem debate plays on in Portland OR, we are only getting the Republicans which was interesting but enough already
January 6th, 2008 at 2:40 am
I predict that the MSM will go after the John Edwards - Rielle Hunter love affair story (with baby in oven now!) ONLY if he looks to be the nominee.
The MSM would prefer to just ignore any sex scandal of a politician (Democrat, that is), but they may have to cover the story when Ms. Hunter puts John Edwards on the birth certificate as the father. Under some state laws, it’s the birth certificate that counts for child support, if the “birth father” does not contest it.
Once Rielle Hunter determines that it would be much easier to get child support if John Edwards is listed on the birth certificate, I think that Ms. Hunter will let the story out. She knows about John Edwards’ fortune and she want it!!
So, what’s this mean? It’s my opinion that Rielle Hunter’s life could be in danger. John Edwards would do anything to shut her up (and to prevent that baby from being born.) God help her.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Obama:
“Doesn’t believe the surge in Iraq has worked, and that we need to begin a phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq. Believes the reduction in violence in Iraq is in part a result of the Democratic victories in the United States Congress, which made the Iraqis realize that American troops would not be there forever.”
Goof f’ing grief. Now I’ve heard everything. Oh, it’s the Dems in congress who are responsible for the reduced violence in Iraq, not the efforts of the military. That line, along with his assertion that the U.S. is “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” in Afghanistan proves that Obama is just another shameless, disingenuous, self-serving politician - and a complete idiot to boot.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Hi Bradley, and thanks for the comment… I agree, I thought that particular comment by Obama (that the Democratic victories in the last US election spurred the Iraqis to a greater effort) was a bit of a stretch, too.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Is it just me or does anyone else think Bill Richardson is a gem who deserves much more attention? He’d make a great VP running mate… also, does anyone else see the invisible bubble around Hilary every time she opens her mouth? It says blah, blah, blah, blah…. I can’t listen to her robotic responses to EVERYTHING, but where she really blew it last night was with the last question, do you regret anything you’ve previously said in a debate. She refused to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, she made a mistake somewhere along the way. THe fact that she couldn’t smacks of BUSH… too arrogant and out of touch to ever say, glad you asked that. Yes, I shouldn’t have, whatever… I do hope she gets buried in the New Hampshire snow.