OK, the Democratic Presidential Debate number gazillion is nearly over and I have the opportunity to start recapping what I have just heard. First and foremost, the moderation was pretty atrocious. Read ABC’s own debate blog comments section online (here). They savaged ABC for huge bias while the debate was actually happening. There was huge outrage, with 9 of 10 comments of the 200 or so I read absolutely dumbfounded or angry. Overall, the moderators cut off the candidates, especially Obama. In addition, there seemed to be a strong bias toward Clinton. George Stephanopoulos was the communications director in the Clinton administration for goodness sake. I mean I find it ridiculous he could be chosen as moderator. Ridiculous.
And the moderators focused the entire first part of the debate on irrelevant, sensational issues like Jeremiah Wright, Tuzla, clinging to guns, American flag lapel pins, and both candidates being on the ticket. They even threw in a curve ball about some Professor associated to Obama. Pretty shameful stuff. But, the two candidates handled most of those questions rather well. Clinton seemed on the verge of admitting she exaggerated the Tuzla affair but retracted it by saying next time she needed more sleep. I was pretty impressed until she retracted her admission. A missed opportunity. On the other hand, Clinton emphatically (”Yes, Yes, Yes”) said that Obama can win against McCain. Good for her.
Issues they missed by choosing the sensational? The credit crisis, Afghanistan, Torture, The declining value of the U.S. Dollar, Education, Trade, Immigration, The Supreme Court,Food Prices, Global warming, China, and Civil liberties to name a few.
Now, on to the issues. First, I don’t think this debate will change anyone’s opinion who is a committed voter for either candidate. I tried several times to look at the debate through a pro-Hillary or pro-Barack bias and saw each candidate as credible in what they were saying. Therefore, the question is: what did they really say and is it something that you agree with? There are differences between the two in tone and policy.
Below are the issues addressed and an outline of what I heard.
ADDENDUM (11:25 PM): Since writing this, I have heard that many people are saying Clinton won the debate and that for Obama it was “possibly his worst debate performance.” Interesting. Let’s see what people say tomorrow.
Domestic Policy
Taxes
Social Security
Gun Control
Oil
Affirmative Action
Foreign Policy
General Foreign Policy
Iraq
Iran
1. Taxes
Both candidates made a pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class except for those making more than $200,000-$250,000 a year or more. Fairly straightforward stuff. The nuances were interesting. First, Obama did admit he would consider raising the payroll tax to pay for social security from its current $102,000 limit in order to pay for social security (more on that later). Charlie Gibson went after Obama there claiming he was breaking his pledge.
As for Capital Gains Taxes, both candidates said they would raise the tax to be in line with the prevailing rate during the Clinton administration. Clinton went further in saying that, if she raised them at all from the current 15%, she would raise them to 20% where the Clinton Administration lowered capital gains tax in 1997. It had been 28% at first, suggesting that Obama would be open to raising it as high as 28%. Obama defended his position by saying it was a question of fairness i.e. the top 50 hedge fund managers in 2007 took home $29 billion combined, yet paid a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair, Obama said. Point to Obama.
This was one of the times that Charlie Gibson really unfairly attacked Obama. Gibson kept hammering at Obama on the idea that the last two times we lowered capital gains tax, revenue increased and decreased when we raised the tax. The notion is silly because unless one believes in the Laffer Curve. You raise taxes and you get more money over the long run. The only reason it is different in the short term is because people prefer to pay taxes when rates are low, so they realize their profits when they bring down rates. I was sick of Gibson by this time.
2. Social Security
This issue showed some differences between candidates. Basically, anyone who has looked at the accrual accounting version of the GAO report on the federal government knows we have a $40-$50 trillion hole in our accounts over the next 80 years largely because of medicare and social security (see story from 2006). Basically, social security will go broke because there are too many people retiring and too few workers to support them. What do you do? (for those interested in this topic, there is a great book, The Coming Generational Storm).
Obama’s answer was that you have to do one of three things: cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or raise payroll taxes. He said the first two were non-starters so he wanted to go with option 3. But, he would look to exempt the increase from $102,000-$200,000, only applying the increase beyond that level. That keeps him in line with his tax pledge.
Clinton said all three options were unacceptable and inferred there was some other creative alternative to finance the huge hole in social security. She would get a bipartisan commission to investigate the issue and come up with a plan, just as they did in 1983. The problem is that this commision, headed by Alan Greenspan, raised the retirement age and raised payroll taxes. So, she is obviously mistaken. Point goes to Obama.
3. Gun Control
The question was whether both candidates were flip flopping on this issue. They both said they believed in the 2nd amendment but did not believe it gave one a right to possess any gun one wanted. Clinton used the Assault Rifle ban as an example and Obama compared the issue to owning property where there are limitations on where and what one can build. Well-reasoned all around. Tie.
But, here again, Charlie Gibson was well out of line. When asking Clinton a question he had asked Obama, he insulted Obama saying “[he] didn’t know whether [he] really got an answer out of Senator Obama” when he asked him the question. Totally out of line — that is, unless you give the candidate a chance to respond.
4. Oil
Both Obama and Clinton want to go after Big Oil’s profits. They call these Windfall profit taxes. That’s all I could get from what they said except some mumbo jumbo about green collar jobs and the like. I view the Windfall Profit Tax very, very negatively. If one taxes big oil it will mean higher oil prices as it will dis-incentivize them to explore for and refine oil at the present price. It’s a demagoguery issue. They both lose.
5. Affirmative Action
They both made the point that they support Affirmative Action, but that it needs to be fair. I agree 100%. Obama went further by saying well-educated, rich blacks should not benefit from affirmative action when applying to college whereas poor whites should. I have been saying the same thing for quite some time. If people wa
nt to see Affirmative Action as fair it has to be targeted not at just minorities but anyone who doesn’t get an equal shot. Clinton made this point as well. She did go off-topic slightly and used this as an opportunity to discuss education, a topic she looked very comfortable on. But, she was good on the whole.
Slight edge to Obama for specifics.
6. General Foreign Policy
This was an issue where Clinton’s hawkishness was scary. Basically she has a plan to have any Middle Eastern country that will disavow nuclear weapons and work with the U.S. receive an umbrella protection agreement like NATO. Basically, she’s saying, if Iran attacks Egypt, we will attack Iran. Hell no! First, there is the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. Second, that is the type of thing that got the Europeans into two World Wars. It was the umbrella protection agreement that the Russians gave the Serbs that started World War I. Scary stuff from Clinton.
On the other hand, Obama was pretty sharp in praising George H.W. Bush for his foreign policy execution, contrasting it with George W. Bush’s. He said he would consult former President’s for advice, but was much more likely to consult the elder Bush than the current President. Well done and very bipartisan sounding!
Huge Point for Obama.
7. Iraq
Get out now. That’s what both candidates said. They also said that they would pledge to withdraw ASAP, Clinton would begin within 60 days and Obama would be out in under 16 months. They both said that they would call the shots and the military advisors would advise unlike with Petraeus and Bush. No real difference except in nuance.
8. Iran
Some differences. Both do not want Iran to get nuclear weapons. They would see an Iranian attack on Israel as a reason to use military force against Iran. (This is when Clinton added her Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait umbrella concept). Clinton did sound more bellicose. She said she would absolutely not talk with Ahmadinejad. Very old school foreign policy on her part.
Slight point to Obama.
All in all, I left feeling impressed with Obama, a bit disappointed with Clinton and convinced of ABC moderator ineptitude or bias. The reason Clinton disappointed was her lost opportunity to show honesty on Tuzla and her attempts to go negative during the early, non-issue part of the debate.
And, by the way the Mainstream Media is crap. They report on these things without any bite. It’s as if a journalist must always be impartial. I read a few AP or Reuters reports of the debate and I find them lacking substance or nuance. No wonder people are turning to the Internet for information.
Related posts:
