August 20, 2007
The Dems' Iowa Debate: Knocking Obama, Stuck On The War
"Let's pick on the new kid!"
Such went the kickoff of yesterday's Democratic debate in Iowa. ABC News' George Stephanopoulos didn't mince words, in a repeat of his fine performance as GOP debate moderator two weeks ago. First question: Is Barack Obama ready to be president?
A good question to ask on behalf of those who've watched Obama's political evolution and are beginning to wonder if his candidacy isn't all just heat and light.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who can be held responsible for planting doubts in the ether about Obama's readiness, opted to stay above the fray and sidestep the topic. Saying she would comment only on her own qualifications, she added, "So I think we have a great group of candidates. You don't have to be against anybody. This is a great problem to have."
Ice cream and puppies for everyone!
Of course, Clinton was able to take the high road because other candidates are now doing the dirty work for her. Joseph Biden, one of the more seasoned statesmen of the bunch, was forced after a bit of dodging to reaffirm an earlier assertion that Obama isn't ready for prime time.
Obama's freshman fumbles also made him a hot topic in the GOP Iowa debate. It's a convenient tool on several fronts: He's so well-liked that no one wants to go after him too hard, his short record in public life doesn't have many blemishes (or accomplishments, for that matter), and of the top candidates, he was always against the war in Iraq. Some of his rivals, particularly in Camp Clinton, are reportedly annoyed by Obama's celebrity-fueled ride to the front of the pack. Emphasizing the fact that Obama hasn't been a U.S. senator for an entire term yet seems a reasonable way to take him down a peg.
It's no surprise that Obama came prepared to fend off those attacks, but he did so with an unexpected amount of spine. It took a couple of weeks of wavering, but his camp appears to have settled on these positions: We'll take out Osama bin Laden with or without our allies' help, and we won't "be afraid" to talk to our enemies. Both are sort of "no-duh" positions for the Democratic field to take, but he was able to present them in a way that made it appear as if Clinton et al. disagreed. All the Democratic contenders are more or less in agreement on these issues -- that's sort of the annoying thing about this field -- so the trick is to create the appearance of conflict where it may not even exist. Smart move, senator.
Now, for a real conflict in the Democratic field: the war. This was one of the more substantive discussions on an exit strategy we've seen in these forums. Clinton and Biden have the most detailed and cautious positions, based on the assumption that any candidate who says the war will come to a halt their first day in office is either delusional or lying.
"It is so important that we not oversell this," Clinton said of a troop withdrawal.
Bill Richardson, who favors a total pullout, and Biden, who favors partition, confronted each other directly on their differences.
"But you can't have stability without any American troop there," Richardson said. "So I'd like my question answered. What is the purpose of the residual force?"
"Look, the fundamental disagreement I have with my colleagues up here is that they seem to cling to the fundamental strategic mistake that everyone on both sides plays to, and that is that there is any possibility in the lifetime of anyone here of having the Iraqis get together, have a unity government in Baghdad that pulls the country together," Biden responded. "That will not happen.... It will not happen in the lifetime of anyone here."
Americans fed up with the bloody involvement in Iraq seem to understand that getting out won't be quick or easy, which is a bonus for the more cautious withdrawal advocates. Biden has the most detailed postwar strategy out of all the serious contenders, and it stands to take off if the Sept. 15 report on Iraq paints a grim outlook for political progress there. If he doesn't make it to the general (polls show he won't), expect the eventual nominee to adopt some if not most of his plan.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Clinton, Obama and John Edwards locked in a three-way tie in Iowa. Clinton's clean debate performances have widened her lead in most national polls, making an early primary upset even more crucial for Obama's and Edwards' viability.
Knowing they have less and less to lose has freed Obama and Edwards to sort of let the dogs out as they chase the front-runner. Both are hitting her on a) having already been in the White House, and b) taking money from lobbyists. But excepting the lefty purists of the party, these are not tremendously potent weapons to use against her.
As a woman who is not named George W. Bush, she arguably is a change candidate as well as an experience candidate. And on the lobbying issue, nearly everyone on the Hill has some mud on their hands. OK, so that's not the greatest argument for/against reform. Here's a better one for Democrats: Do you want to win or not? Republicans may have self-esteem issues right now, but expect them to perk up when we're down to two candidates. Clinton's message that taking donations from corporations and lobbyists is a necessary part of the job may not be the most inspiring, but she's smart to relegate promises about cleaning out the system to after the election.
Not all the candidates appeared to have done their homework on the subprime lending crisis; The Caucus takes a look, and Jim "Mad Money" Cramer previews the trouble ahead (without shouting). Obama's campaign announced over the weekend that he'll start saying no to future debate invitations; guess that FOX/Congressional Black Caucus debate really isn't happening?
Graphic: Reuben Dalke
Posted at 5:20 PM
Posted to:
Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Bush Administration, Campaigns, Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Joseph Biden, President Bush, Republicans, WH 2008
Share via
