April 2007 - Posts
When Pat Buchanan and Bob Shrum agree so definitively on something - what else is there to say?
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
Friends and family swarmed the stage as soon as the debate ended. Biden moved to center stage for an interview on MSNBC. Richardson stood by as Biden spoke to the camera. No other candidates are visible on the stage at this point -- they're either surrounded by well-wishers or they're already out the door.
(By MSNBC's Pat Buchanan)
Hillary Rodham Clinton entered this debate as the front-runner and leaves this debate as a stronger front-runner. She won going away.
Responding in what she would do in an event of an attack, Hillary was an almost echo of Ronald Reagan.
Clinton’s chief opponent, Barack Obama, seemed programmed and unspontaneous.
The others:
- Joe Biden seemed crisp and short.
- Richardson was engaging
- Kucinich was a man of conviction. He believes was he says.
- Edwards was lacking in energy, passion, and fire.
After the first question, there was some space between them on their answer to a question about how they would respond to a domestic terrorist attack. Obama expressed concern that we carefully deal with international colleagues. Clinton made it clear that retaliation against the enemy would be right in her sights if the blame could be clearly identified.
I thought it was going to stand that way and he would be viewed as more reserved in international aggression.
Yet this didn't stand, Obama needed to come back and use another question to assure people that he thinks that a serious military response is sometimes called for.
Then he gets in a fight with Kucinich and he is the hawk. No, it isn't your imagination. He aligned himself purposely with the views of Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton was superb in saying what she would do if the US was the subject of a terrorist attack- Attack back.
Note to Barack Obama: When asked about America’s three most important allies, don’t forget about Israel.
Joe Biden had the best moment of the night when asked if he was verbose and whether he could avoid gaffs he gave a one-word answer: Yes. It was sharp, funny, and the time limits were Biden’s friend.
Winner: Hillary Clinton
Winner among the second tier: Joe Biden- seemed genuinely presidential.
Didn’t seem to be there very much: Barack Obama
No hits, no runs, no errors: John Edwards
(
By MSNBC's Joe Scarborough)
Damn. John Edwards just gave a fantastic closing argument. It was the most human moment of the debate and is the type of snapshot of a candidate's soul that moves voters. Barack Obama's best moment may have been standing up to Kucinich on Iran. And Joe Biden waving off happy talk was a moment that would even make heartless Republicans smile. A strong ending for these three. Still, no clear winners.
(By MSNBC's Tucker Carlson)
Most repulsive moment: Watching virtually the entire stage defend partial birth abortion. This is an act so cruel and brutal that few news accounts even describe it. It’s too disgusting. The vast majority of Americans, even those who are generally pro-choice, oppose it. Yet one by one, the Democratic candidates explained how upset they were by the recent Supreme Court ruling banning it.
Chris Dodd said he was “disappointed terribly.” Barack Obama tried to argue that partial birth abortions shouldn’t be prohibited because they account “for less than one percent of abortions that take place.” As if because they’re relatively rare, partial birth abortions somehow aren’t wrong. Obama can’t believe this. None of them can.
Maybe I’m giving them more credit than they deserve, but the Democrats struck me as uncomfortable when the subject came up. They’re in hock to the pro-abortion lobby, so they’ve got to support “a woman’s right to choose” even when it’s obviously killing. But they feel dirty when they do it. At least I hope they do.
After the first question, there was some space between them on their answer to a question about how they would respond to a domestic terrorist attack. Obama expressed concern that we carefully deal with international colleagues. Clinton made it clear that retaliation against the enemy would be right in her sights if the blame could be clearly identified.
I thought it was going to stand that way and he would be viewed as more reserved in international aggression.
Yet this didn't stand, Obama needed to come back and use another question to assure people that he thinks that a serious military response is sometimes called for.
Then he gets in a fight with Kucinich and he is the hawk. No, it isn't your imagination. He aligned himself purposely with the views of Hillary Clinton.
(
By MSNBC's Joe Scarborough)
John Edwards has had a stronger second half while Hillary Clinton has seemed a bit flat. She said she supported George Bush when he took US troops into Afghanistan but...she...uh...wasn't for attacking a country like Iraq that didn't attack us. But, of course, she did. Still, Clinton, Edwards and Obama have done what is required to get out of the first debate. Hillary Clinton should be the next Democratic nominee for president if she avoids big mistakes. Tonight she did.
Chris Dodd made the case for same sex marriage so eloquently and then said he was against it. Too bad this issue didn't go down the line with other candidates. I'm sure there will be other chances for them all to finesse this issue.
(By MSNBC's Tucker Carlson)
Best question of the night: "How do hedge funds make America a better place?" Brian Williams asked that question of both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. The correct answer is: They don’t. Yet both candidates dodged it. In other words, John Edwards is running an entire presidential campaign against corporate greed and on behalf of the disenfranchised working man, and he can’t even bring himself to criticize hedge funds, the very symbol of parasitic capitalism run amok. Come on.
Best answer of the night: “Yes.” That was Joe Biden’s monosyllabic response when Brian Williams asked him if, in the event he’s elected president, he’d be able to control his compulsive talking. You could see the strain on Biden’s face as he struggled to keep his tongue under control. But he did it, maybe for the first time, and for that he deserves credit.
Least believable moment: “Why do Republicans seem so eager to run against you?” Williams asked Hillary Clinton. “Because I’ve stood up for what I believe in,” she answered. In other words, I’m so principled, so steadfast in my views, that my intellectual integrity intimidates my opponents. Ha! Even Clinton’s friends concede she’s politically malleable. Can she really believe this? Maybe she does. People’s capacity for self-deception is endless.
Most revealing moment: John Edwards admitted (by not raising his hand) that he has never had a gun of any kind in his house. And he claims to be a Southerner?
Most amusing moment: Bill Richardson pledging to get us out of Iraq “with diplomacy” on his very first day in office. On his second day, Richardson promised to solve the energy crisis. Bill Richardson is magic.
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
One person in the audience, who's less than 20 feet from the stage, has binoculars -- and he's using them. It's unclear what he can see that the rest of us can't. One observation without binoculars: Edwards drinks his bottled water straight from the bottle.
(By MSNBC's Joe Scarborough)
Halfway through the first Democratic debate, it seems Hillary Clinton is meeting expectations. Not flashy but solid. Her answers on health care and government competence were strong.
Barack Obama has yet to meet expectations of healing the sick or raising the dead, but is performing as well as required.
John Edwards seems weaker than he was in his upstart 2004 campaign.
Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich are doing well, but to little effect.
Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd seem to be underperfoming, with the New Mexico governor fighting his tongue as well as Nixonian flop sweat.
And the former Alaska senator wins the James Stockdale Memorial Award for confused debate performance
Abortion - everyone but Dodd was OK (He said he didn't regret voting for the not-so - secret right winger Justice Roberts). No throw to Hillary was disappointing given the importance of the issue to women. Obama did a good job on the big picture and Biden was the only one who took on Brian's theory that the American people support limits on abortion.
Guns - frankly, everyone was vague. They should have talked about how the Republicans let the assault rifle ban lapse.
Edwards should have knocked this one out. He didn't seem to have a focused message for the tax versus funding of healthcare issue.
Clinton used the opportunity to turn around Brian's attack on her popularity as a call for change on domestic issues. Effective.
Obama skirted the issue of funding of his priorities and instead made an effective case for more health care by using personal stories.
Clinton spoke with final authority on health care. Can anyone really match her knowledge on this?
On these Domestic issues, everyone is playing nice with each other's ideas and experience.
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
Mumbling ensued in the crowd as candidates answered Williams' question about who has ever had a gun in the house. Richardson, Biden and Dodd quickly raised their hands, but a few seconds passed before
Dodd Gravel and Kucinich raised theirs.
(By MSNBC's Joe Scarborough)
When Brian Williams warned the candidates that he was going to be bringing up elephant-in-the-room issues, the top tier candidates had to flinch. His first question tied Barack Obama to a corrupt contributor. Obama stumbled a bit but recovered quickly. John Edwards was scuffed up on his $400 haricut that was in direct conflict with his two-America's jargon. But Joe Biden hit his curveball out of the park. Williams asked whether he could assure Americans that he could stop being a human gaffe machine and guard his mouth.
Biden's answer? "Yes."
Applause followed and even Brian laughed, proving once again that brevity is the soul of wit.
Winner: Biden
Loser: Edwards
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
Clinton just opened her water bottle for the first time and Kucinich leaned over to hand her her glass. As the audience intermittently fans itself, the candidates apparently have a different climate because pages from Biden's notepad occasionally ruffle from a fan somewhere on stage.
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
There have been a few chuckles so far, but Biden scored the first extended laugh with his one word reply to a question about his verbiosity. Gravel is not only getting laughs, but also prompting some in the audience to talk among themselves.
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
The temperature in the hall seems to go up and down. Some people are fanning themselves with their programs.
That was fantastic. A simple yes or no will do.
(By MSNBC's Joe Scarborough)
Ten minutes into the debate, Dennis Kucinich became the first candidate to cut through the rhetorical fog of the MSNBC debate. Hisstatement that opposing the war while funding it is impossible. That shot at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may not win Kucinich any votes, but it is sure to energize the Democratic base.
Senator Clinton sounded defensive on her vote to authorize the war, but got off her heels when going after President Bush's handling of the Iraq crisis. Barack Obama was a bit flat in round one but after being compared to JFK and Bobby Kennedy for the past few months, it is impossible for him to reach the lofty expectations placed on him.
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
Nearly 15 minutes in, sporadic coughs and clearing throats can be heard throughout the hall. Clinton herself just had a subtle cough. The crowd made its first non-cough/throat-clearing noises as Gravel wrapped up his first answer. It was a soft "hmmm."
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
The clicking camera chorus continues as Obama answers for the first time. As Edwards speaks, there has been no audible reaction from the audience during
any of the initial answers.
Hillary Clinton started the debate with a strong clear position on Iraq, that positioned her as an anti-war candidate. It was crisp, almost without a whiff of nuance.
Edwards definitely managed to draw the contrast with Clinton on the war without seeming to attack her. She got a chance to respond, and once again sounded like she would do as much as anyone to end the war.
Senators Clinton and Biden gave good focused starting answers. Clinton gave the best and firm overview of the politics. Biden gave a great brief overview of the tactical military and political questions we face. They both refrained from attacking each other. Obama started with the subtle dig, then tried - and failed perhaps for lack of time - the emotional plea. Obama added nothing to his position on what to do about the war right now however. Edwards took a dig at Clinton but made a smart point against Bush and our place in the world since the war has started. Is Edwards the attack dog tonight? Clinton's comeback was sure and she got more airtime articulating her plan because Edward's attacked her. First question - A Clinton and Biden win.
It is appropriate to start the first televised Presidential Democratic debate with an ode to my friend and mentor Jack Valenti. When I first got my job as head of the Recording Industry Association of America, Jack was the first person I called. After-all, he was the dean of Associations and we shared many of the same entertainment industry company members. He was a gentle man and a gentleman. Testifying at the same hearing as Jack felt like the clown following the lion tamer. He was magical. People would come to listen to him speak, not because they loved copyright but just to hear Jack talk. I loved Jack.
And he loved politics. The civil kind. The kind of politics that was governed by people who cared about service and wanted to do well for the American people. Let's hope that tonight's debate is a testament to Jack's kind of politics.
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
Brian Williams is now in the hall. The crowd is quiet, whispering to one another. Some folks are mouthing words across several rows to friends without making any sound. Dodd and Edwards are chatting again, as are Obama and Biden. The others are quietly watching Williams or the crowd.
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
All eight candidates are in position now. As reported earlier, the order from left to right is: Richardson, Dodd, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Kucinich and Gravel. Edwards and Biden are chatting. Clinton, Obama and Kucinich are writing notes. Richardson and Dodd are drinking their bottled waters. Gravel is looking at Kucinich.
(By Brooke Brower, Hardball producer)
As Nightly News continues, a few stragglers are coming through the side doors. Before the lights went down for the broadcast, formeer Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) took a seat in one of the first few rows.
(By Brooke Bower, Hardball producer)
All eight candidates just came to center-stage for a pre-debate group photo. Amid a standing ovation, the candidates waved, smiled, and pointed to fans in the crowd. They are now gradually moving to their respective podiums. Richardson, Dodd and Gravel were the first in position. Biden moved to his spot shortly after them. The rest of the field is offstage now.
As a side light to the Clinton-Obama confrontation, everyone’s asking if someone from the second tier can break through tonight. Historically, you need a big issue to do that-McGovern did it with the Vietnam war in 1972; Gephardt broke into the top tier in 1988 running on the issue of foreign trade. A breakthrough has to be powered by an idea- or maybe by the stylistic performance of the century. What the second tier has to do is to make a good impression that outlasts the night, get noticed, inch up, and begin raising some more money.
By the way, the focus on Clinton and Obama also ignores the reality, in my view, that John Edwards is and will be in the first tier because of his strength in Iowa, Nevada, and maybe New Hampshire. For him and for the ultimate outcome the national polls matter a lot less than where the candidates stand in those early states.
(By Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian)
With so many candidates participating, it is unlikely that these early debates will make or break a candidacy unless, of course, one of them makes an unfortunate slip of the tongue as Sen. Kerry and Gov. Allen did in recent months. And since everyone is aware of the dangers of this, they are all likely to be so careful, so girdled, that they will seem even more programmed than usual. Nor is anyone likely to take on someone else in a hard-hitting way since all are aware of the polls suggesting people are sick of attack politics.
Best advice would be to couch subtle attacks in humor such as Reagan’s great comeback to the question about his age when he promised he would not exploit Mondale’s youth and inexperience. What we should be looking for at this juncture are clues to temperament and character – the degree of self confidence, the willingness to admit not having a complete answer to a question, the capacity to make an emotional connection with the audience, the ease of language, the inclination to treat rivals with respect, the readiness to stake out positions that may not be popular among core interest groups in the party but which represent hard truths and deep convictions.
I am looking for a few simple things in the debate tonight. Which candidate is giving us more than sound bites and rhetoric? Which candidate isn’t answering the questions soooo carefully that by the end of their answer we forgot the question? Which candidate seems best able to project specifics about how they would get us out of the war - and maybe even demonstrate some leadership skills to affect the current showdown with President Bush over the Iraq supplemental?
I also want to hear candidates address some other issues that matter to me, like public education. I want to know what the candidates will do to ameliorate the recent Supreme Court decision rolling back a woman’s right to choose. I think that Democrats should talk about the cost of the war, not just in terms of human lives and international strife, but also what it has impeded us from doing at home. And finally I’d like to hear a good answer from the candidates as to how they would respond to a national disaster like Katrina with enough specifics that we could have faith in their commitment.
CONTINUED >>
We live in an age where not only does everyone have an opinion but they now have the ability to register it on a blog, an e-mail, on talk radio or at a bus stop. We have become a nation of 300 million columnists.
And this might be one aspect of the Democrat’s Thursday night debate that the pros, the pols, the pundits, consultants and all those who sit ringside during the build-up to the primaries simply don’t pay enough attention to; it won’t be a smile, a pleasant demeanor, appealing personality or a drop-dead one-liner that will separate one candidate from another.
It will be simpler than that because this country aches to be led. Add the weight of the disaster that is Iraq, the deceits and incompetence of the Bush administration, the insane level of partisanship and the sense, held by many, that this president and too many in both parties simply do not hear the coast-to-coast cry for truth and direction and the ultimate winner will be the candidate who plants the flag and says “follow me because I have beliefs.”
This Thursday, my colleague Brian Williams moderates the first Democratic presidential debate for 2008 at South Carolina State University.
I’m looking forward to the event because it will be the first opportunity for everyone, including me, to see a number of things:
How will Hillary Clinton, the only woman on stage, look in this line-up of men? Will she radiate with charisma? Will she debate with strength and modulation? Will she be cool, persuasive and appealing? Will she clearly stake out her position on the war in Iraq and on Mideast policy generally? Will she stick her neck out in this first joint appearance or simply give it the minimum, playing not to lose?
Will Barack Obama engage head-to-head with Hillary? Will he bring the debate to her, challenging her vote to authorize the war, questioning her proposal to keep a residual military force in Iraq, and demanding her position on any military action against Iran?
CONTINUED >>
With all eight Democratic candidates on stage, the great and the good along with the second tier, it’s difficult for anyone to shine so brightly that he or she will be regarded as the winner—and the media, at least in the first flush of commentary, seldom declares a victor. The real challenge—and opportunity—is to go into a debate like this with one or at most two strategic objectives. Thus, in a 2004 radio debate shortly before the Iowa caucuses John Kerry’s relentless purpose was to nail Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt for proposing to repeal the entire Bush tax cut, including the portion that went to the middle class; Kerry favored repealing only the tax cuts for the top one percent—which Bush being Bush, accounted for the bulk of the money. Kerry had additional lucky advantage; John Edwards, who had the same position he did, didn’t bother to show up.
CONTINUED >>
Debates put presidential candidates on the same stage. That’s the way voters like to see them, squaring off, testing their wits, competing with ideas. These joint appearances are the main events of every presidential election.
Think of the historic moments in presidential debates -- “There you go again” in 1980, that George W. look when Gore approached him in 2000, that sweat on Nixon’s lip when he watched Kennedy in 1960, that look on Gary Hart's face when Mondale asked, “Where’s the beef?" in 1984.
It's an honor to be moderating the first Republican debate of 2008.
(By Eric Kuhn, Hardball Intern)
On April 10, Callista Gingrich moved her seat to the front row in the Senate Caucus Room on Capitol Hill with her Nikon camera, ensuring she had chosen the best position to photograph her husband. Shortly after she settled in position, the introductions began and Sen. John Kerry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took the stage in front of a standing-room-only crowd to debate “Global Climate Change and the Environment.” The New York University Brademas Center for the Study of Congress sponsored the event.
CONTINUED >>
Adjusting combat tour length doesn’t solve the problem
Secretary of Defense of Gates announced Wednesday that he is
extending the combat tour length for active duty U.S. Army soldiers from the standard 12 months to 15 months, with the commitment that the period between combat rotations will be 12 months. This announcement does not affect the reserve components of the Army – the Reserves and National Guard – nor does it affect the length of deployment for the U.S. Marines, currently seven months.
While that sounds like it will provide more troops for the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, in reality many of the troops are extended for that extra three months anyway. In the past, that was the most effective way to plus up the number of troops: maintain the inbound schedule but retain units about to rotate home an extra three months. In effect, this formalizes the longer tour length that has been imposed on many of the soldiers who have served and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The objective is to provide soldiers at least 12 months between combat tours, and at the same time provide higher levels of troops in the region. It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. It will work in the short term, but at some point, you run out of soldiers.
The problem is not the tour length; it’s the fact that we do not have a sufficient number of soldiers – or Marines for that matter – to maintain the scale and pace of operations, the “ops tempo,” currently assigned to the armed forces.
Let’s be clear about our armed forces.
CONTINUED >>
The Iranians have decided to release the 15 British sailors and Marines they have held hostage for over 12 days. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he had “pardoned” the British during the celebration of the birth of the prophet, which this year almost coincides with Easter. To the world, he appears to have made a magnanimous gesture.
Good news, of course, but now comes the post mortem. There are many questions to be answered, not the least of which are what did the British give to secure the release of their service members, and will Iran pay a price for their action?
Most of the world believes the British were operating in Iraqi waters and this whole affair was engineered by the Iranians to draw attention from its nuclear program. Inside Iran, the affair may have played well - distrust of the British is an ingrained emotion. It was Britain, after all, that granted Iraq total sovereignty over the Shatt al-Arab when they created the country in the aftermath of World War One. It is that same body of water that sparked decades of disputes between Iran and Iraq, including 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. It is also the venue of the current Iranian action against the British anti-smuggling team. The current border in the waterway is the thalweg, the deepest part of the channel, not always easy to define – confrontations are probably unavoidable.
CONTINUED >>
