December 04, 2007
NPR Debate: The Gloves Come... On
UPDATED.
As we had hoped, this afternoon's Democratic debate in Des Moines sponsored by NPR and Iowa Public Radio left little room for petty politics and applause lines (largely because there was no live audience) and brought the conversation back to the issues. Three main issues, to be exact: Iran, China and immigration.
Debate moderators Steve Inskeep, Michele Norris and Robert Siegel said they chose to narrow their questions to those three broad topic areas in order to dig deeper into the candidates' positions and allow more time for follow-up. The heavy focus on foreign policy and immigration largely left out the talking points that Democrats have focused on throughout this year of campaigning: Iraq, climate change, health care and economic burdens on the middle class (although at the end they candidates were given time to discuss what they'd do to improve the economy over the four years of their first term).
Instead of standing at podiums, the seven candidates were seated at a V-shaped table. (Bill Richardson was attending the funeral for a Korean War soldier whose remains he helped repatriate back to the U.S. earlier this year.)
The format largely had the intended effect: The candidates were civil, the discussions were substantive (for the most part) and the moderators did their best to coax straightforward answers from the candidates. And maybe it's just us, but there's something about the radio format that made everyone (well, almost everyone) sound more presidential. Here are some of the highlights:
Iran: Carrots, Sticks And Saber-Rattling
The moderators billed the first part of the debate as a discussion of Iran and the related topic of Iraq, but with the new National Intelligence Estimate about the Iranian nuclear program (and President Bush's comments about it earlier today) fresh on everyone's minds, the focus was much sharper on Tehran than it was on Baghdad. That's a stark contrast from the last Democratic debate in Iowa, which may have been why the moderators chose that route. But it also speaks to the changing mood of the country. Polls show Americans are beginning to think more positively about Iraq, but ever since the president spoke of a potential World War III with Iran, the public appears to have become more skittish about that country's threat to U.S. national security.
Not surprisingly, all seven of the candidates issued sharp rebukes to Bush for his assertion this morning that the NIE showing Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 would not change U.S. strategy toward Iran. We didn't count the number of times the candidates accused the Bush administration of "saber rattling," but in the future it might make a good drinking game. It's certainly a favorite talking point, as is the September Senate vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization -- at least for everyone except Hillary Rodham Clinton, the only candidate who voted in favor of that non-binding resolution.
John Edwards made it a point to hit the New York senator hard on that vote, but in a sharp U-turn from other recent debates, Barack Obama largely steered clear of attacking Clinton directly, as did most of the other candidates (although they rigorously criticized the resolution itself). Was it the format? The absence of a live audience? Or maybe it had something to do with Obama's new lead in the Hawkeye state and his eagerness to paint Clinton as the attacker rather than the attackee. Whatever the reason, the mostly amiable tone of the proceedings made it sound more like a graduate seminar discussion, not a debate in the final throes of a campaign.
In terms of what should be done with respect to Iran, most of the candidates agreed that any potential threat from Tehran, either to the United States or other countries in the Middle East, should be dealt with diplomatically first and foremost. Clinton and Obama tried to strike a more forceful tone, speaking of "aggressive diplomacy" (a favorite term of Obama's) and both "carrots and sticks" (a Clinton staple).
Sens. Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd focused more on the need for a multilateral approach and blamed the Bush administration for hindering U.S. diplomatic options. "The reason why we are disliked so much is that we are trusted so little," Biden said in response to a question about Muslim sentiment toward the U.S. On the same question, Obama attempted to draw a real distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans in the race. "If you were a Muslim overseas" listening to Rudy Giuliani tell voters "they are coming here to try and kill you," Obama reasoned, "you'd get the impression that [Americans] aren't interested in talking and resolving issues peacefully."
After spending at least a half-hour bashing the so-called "Bush doctrine" on foreign policy, Biden, Clinton, Edwards and Obama were given a chance to describe what their doctrines would be. According to a recent bipartisan poll [PDF] of U.S. foreign policy views, their answers -- restore America's authority, cooperate with other nations, prevent conflicts and approach all problems (poverty, climate change, trade) from a global perspective -- indicate that the Democrats are largely in step with the American electorate (not just their party's base) on this issue.
Next Stop: China!
Continuing on the subject of foreign policy, the candidates all seemed to agree that, for the time being, the United States has the leverage and ability to deal effectively with emerging problems related to China, including import safety and human rights. They were also in agreement that the Bush administration has not done enough on these issues, and that the next president would have to be tougher in order to head off a potential crisis down the road.
"This is not a competition," Dodd said, pointing out that on the trade front, China is "not playing by the same rules" as the U.S. "It's an adversarial relationship. That needs to change." Biden agreed: "If France was acting like China's acting, we'd be tough with them. This is about being fair."
The top candidates all stressed the need to enforce current laws and exercise options afforded by the World Trade Organization to punish companies that are found to be engaging in unlawful labor practices or that sell contaminated products made in China.
When asked if they'd be willing to accept the consequences of higher prices for goods in the U.S., Obama conceded that that would be a possibility in the short term. Edwards and Dennis Kucinich pushed for Americans to buy local. Gravel said something about "beggar thy neighbor" that we still don't quite understand. And Dodd, facetiously pandering to the Hawkeye State audience, stressed that he only buys "Iowa toys and Iowa food."
The Immigration Conundrum
The final topic on tap was one that has been a pet issue of the GOP field but largely uncharted territory for the Democrats (excepting those driver's license questions back in Philly). Kudos to the moderators for forcing the candidates to confront questions like, "Is it the average citizen's responsibility to turn in illegal immigrants?" and "What will you do starting January 2009 to address this issue?" The Democrats can run from the immigration issue, but they can't hide once the general election comes around. If illegal immigration can top the charts of voters' concerns in a border-free state like Iowa, its potency clearly can't be disputed.
The party's weakness in terms of clarifying its position on immigration was evident in the debate responses. The candidates were quick to denounce the "demagoguery" of immigration opponents, praise hard-working immigrants and stress that they should not be denied services and basic human rights. But they also stressed the need to crack down on violators and prevent more illegal immigrants from entering.
Obama seemed to be most prepared for these questions, having worked with other senators to craft one of the comprehensive immigration reform policies that failed earlier this year. Touching on a theme that has dominated coverage of the immigration debate, Obama argued that the votes are there for a comprehensive solution, but it's leadership from the White House that's been missing.
Overall, the debate format seemed to favor Obama, whose eggheaded approach to the issues probably already appeals to the NPR set more than it does to the viewers of the cable news debates. The New Republic's Noam Scheiber deemed it a "lousy format" for Clinton.
Unfortunately for the candidates and for those interested in learning more about where they stand on some of the least sexy issues of the campaign, it appears very few mainstream media outlets are bothering to cover the debate (a CNN reporter actually sounded disappointed that the candidates hadn't been more negative). Most news reports are focusing on the "lashing" Democrats gave Bush and Clinton over Iran. Meanwhile, The Gate is still holding out hope that the Republicans will have their chance to debate NPR-style some time in the new year.
NPR has a "reality check" review of the candidates' responses. The Des Moines Register and the Politico also have reports on the debate.
Graphics: Reuben Dalke
Posted at 6:25 PM
Posted to:
Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Campaigns, Christopher Dodd, Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Joseph Biden, Mike Gravel, WH 2008
Share via
