Mystery Debate Theater 2008

The Democrats, Episode 10

The Beachwood Mystery Debate Theater team did not meet at Beachwood HQ for the New Hampshire double-header on Saturday night. But we did end up covering it.
Earlier in the day.
Steve: There are two debates tonight, but I just don’t think I have the strength or time to cope with it. I’ve got a lot of other things to do.
Tim: Me too.
Debate starts. Steve calls Tim.
Steve: This sucks. There’s no way I can not watch this. I’m really getting a lot done and I’d prefer to have some dumb sci-fi flick on in the background, you know?
Tim: I know! Son of Svengoolie is having Son of Frankenstein tonight!

Subsequent e-mails confirm that each is watching both debates in full. On Sunday we discuss our geekdom – but also our surprise that these debates were so good. The format of having the candidates sit and actually exchange thoughts and arguments with each other worked beautifully. In fact, the debates have been the best part of this campaign.
We separately took a few notes. Then I went back through the transcript and added some thoughts. So here is a Virtual Mystery Debate Theater 2008 episode. As always, this has been edited for space, clarity and sanity.
*
MODERATOR CHARLIE GIBSON: How aggressively would you go after al-Qaeda leadership [in Pakistan]?
And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. We have to press them to do more to take on al-Qaeda in their territory. If they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.
On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I’ve worked on since I’ve been in the Senate.
STEVE: You know, in the weeks after I took my oath office right before I started running for president. Joe Biden is curled up in the fetal position somewhere in Delaware right now.
GIBSON: What you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
GIBSON: Senator Edwards, do you agree with him?
EDWARDS: If I as president of the United States know where Osama bin Laden is, I would go get him, period.
STEVE: And I would put him on trial!
GIBSON: Well, you led me right up to the point of what you’d do if the Islamic radicals actually took control of the Pakistani government and, therefore, were in control of nuclear weapons, and then you went away from that. But I’ll come back to that in a moment. Governor Richardson?
RICHARDSON: In any foreign policy decision, I would use diplomacy first, in response to your question. And that basically means that the last thing we need in the Muslim world is another action like Iraq, which is going to inflame the Muslim world in a horrendous way.
Now, here’s what I would do . . . [blah blah blah]
GIBSON: I understand your point about diplomacy, but Senator Obama’s postulate was, we have actionable intelligence, the Musharraf government won’t move. Should we go into western Pakistan and, essentially, try to take him out?
RICHARDSON: If we have actionable intelligence that is real and if Musharraf is incapable, which he is – because here’s a man who has not stood up for his democracy, he is virtually in a situation where he’s losing control – then you do take that action.
However, Charlie, first you use diplomacy.
STEVE: What if we have actionable intelligence that Bill Richardson is a blowhard wasting everybody’s time. Do we take him out?
GIBSON: Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I think it’s important to get back to your question, because obviously that’s the most direct threat to the United States.
We did take action similar to what has been described about 10 years ago, based on what was thought to be actionable intelligence, sending in missiles to try to target bin Laden and his top leadership who were thought to be at a certain meeting place.
They were not taken out at the time. So we have to be very conscious of all the consequences.
Now, as far as I know, there are, like, five things quickly that we should be looking at.
Bin Laden has in large measure regrouped because we did not put in the troops and make the commitment to aggressively going after him inside Afghanistan when we had a chance. Therefore, we need more NATO troops and a faster effort to train the Afghan army so that we do have the personnel and the technology, including the Predators, to be able to be on the spot at the time to try to move as quickly as possible.
Secondly, I think it’s imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistan’s territory be given the most careful consideration.
And at some point – probably when the missiles have been launched – the Pakistani government has to know they’re on the way. Because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that we’ve got to have a plan to try to make sure we don’t ignite some kind of reaction before we even know whether the action we took with the missiles has worked.
Real quickly, thirdly, so far as we know right now, the nuclear technology is considered secure, but there isn’t any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan.
I would work very hard to try to get Musharraf, who is the elected president – these elections are about parliamentary positions. If you remove Musharraf and have elections, that’s going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next.
I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and, perhaps, Great Britain, so that there is some fail- safe.
STEVE: Or we could just be hope-mongers.
*
RICHARDSON: Charlie, I want us to remember history. Years ago, we backed the shah of Iran, a dictator. We are paying for that policy today by having backed a tyrant who repressed his people – unintended consequences. I believe that we have to be on the side of the Pakistani people, not on the side of the dictator.
And what we have today is an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aside, to move toward a caretaker government, but also to use the leverage of the assistance we’ve given him.
Most of the assistance that we’ve given him – $11 billion, he hasn’t used to go after terrorists. He’s put it in military assistance for his fight against India. The money has been stolen.
We get the worst of all worlds. If we stand on a foreign policy of principle, of human rights, along with protecting our security, that is the best direction for our foreign policy.
STEVE: Bill Richardson is briefly redeemed. Meanwhile, ABC News is projecting that it has removed Dennis Kucinich from the campaign.
*
GIBSON: The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city. On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?
STEVE: Protected our ports. And first we’ll pray.
EDWARDS: The first thing is we have to immediately find out who’s responsible and go after them. And that is the responsibility of the president of the United States.
STEVE: Who is this, Dan . . .
EDWARDS: Because if someone has attacked us with a nuclear weapon, it means they have nuclear technology . . .
STEVE: . . . Quayle?
EDWARDS: It means they could have gotten another nuclear weapon into the United States that we’re unaware of. We have to find these people immediately and use every tool available to us to stop them.
STEVE: Obama’s like, damn, I was gonna say that!
OBAMA: Well, as I said, I’ve already been working on this.
STEVE: For a couple years in my spare time when I haven’t been calling on donors or posing for Men’s Vogue! Paging Joe Biden!
GIBSON: And I know, Senator Clinton, you’ve worked on this as well. But in terms of retaliation, this is not likely going to be a state that sets off a nuclear attack, it’s going to be a stateless group.
CLINTON: Well, the first part of your question was, what would we wish we had done. And I have worked on this in past legislation to move in the direction that I think we should go to have a very high level of commitment from the White House, including a person responsible in our government for marshaling our resources against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
There has to be a better organizing effort to make sure that every part of the United States government is working together. I don’t think we’ve done what we need to do on homeland defense. You started that segment talking about the ease with which ABC smuggled things into this country. We haven’t done enough on port security.
STEVE: Ding ding ding!
GIBSON: I’m going to move on.
STEVE: Because Bill Richardson is talking.
*
GIBSON: I want to get to the concept of change, because 60 percent of the people going into the Democratic caucuses in Iowa said they were going to go there for change, and that seemed to redound to your benefit, Senator Obama.
And arriving here in New Hampshire, Senator Clinton, you called into question, really, what that means.
And you said, and I’m quoting you now, “On a lot of issues, it’s hard to know where he,” referring to Senator Obama, “stands. And people need to ask that. Everybody needs to be vetted.”
So let me have a little dialogue between the two of you.
What does he need to be vetted on? And what questions are there about Senator Obama that are unanswered?
CLINTON: Well, let me say, first, that I think we’re all advocating for change. We all want to change the status quo, which is George W. Bush and the Republican domination of Washington for so many years.
And we all are putting forth ideas about how best to deliver that change.
But I don’t think you make change by, you know, calling for it or by demanding it; I think it is a result of very hard work, bringing people together, stating clearly what your goals are, what your principles are and then achieving them.
And I do think that, you know, part of what this primary process is all about, and New Hampshire voters are, you know, famously independent in making their judgments, is to look at our records, to evaluate where we stand and what we stand for.
And I think that there is a lot of, you know, room to ask all of us questions.
You know, Senator Obama has been – as the Associated Press described it, he could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago, he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care. Then he proposed a health care plan that doesn’t cover everybody.
I think that’s relevant. I mean, I think that what we’re looking for is a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today and tomorrow. And I think that, you know, there are questions that should be asked and answered from each of us. And I certainly have no problem with whatever scrutiny comes my way.
GIBSON: Senator Obama?
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the Associated Press was quoting some of your folks, Hillary,
STEVE: Wrong. And you know it.
OBAMA: I have been entirely consistent in my position on health care.
STEVE: Yes. You’ve been with the insurance companies.
OBAMA: What I said – and I have said on the campaign trail this time – is if I were designing a system from scratch, I would set up a single- payer system, because we could gain enormous efficiencies from it.
But what I’ve also said is that, given that half of the people are getting, already, employer-based health care, that it would be impractical for us to do so, which is why I put forward a plan that says anybody can get health care that is the same as the health care that I have as a member of Congress – similar to the plans that you and John have offered.
We do have a philosophical difference. John and yourself believe that, if we do not mandate care, if we don’t force the government to get to – if the government does not force taxpayers to buy health care, that we will penalize them in some fashion.
I disagree with that because, as I go around town hall meetings, I don’t meet people who are trying to avoid getting health care.
The problem is, they can’t afford it. And the costs are too high. And so, as a consequence, we focus on reducing costs.
STEVE: That’s so disingenuous. It’s not a mandate to force people to buy health care at current prices. This is one reason why Obama drives Paul Krugman nuts. And more nuts.
CLINTON: You have a mandate in your health care plan.
OBAMA: For children.
CLINTON: You mandate parents to have health care for children.
OBAMA: That’s exactly right.
CLINTON: And, obviously, you did that because you want all children covered. So . . .
OBAMA: Because they don’t have a choice.
STEVE: As opposed to poor adults who don’t have the choice to afford health insurance.
CLINTON: So you stopped short of going the distance to make sure that we had a system that could actually deliver health care for everyone.
But it’s not only about health care. You know, I think that two weeks ago, you criticized Senator Edwards in saying that he was unelectable because he had changed positions over the course of four years, that four years ago he wasn’t for universal health care; now, he is.
Well, you’ve changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate, and now you have changed.
You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act. You came to the Senate; you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war. You came to the Senate, and you voted for $300 billion of it.
So I just think it’s fair for people to understand that many of the charges that have been leveled, not just at me, but also at Senator Edwards, are not totally, you know, unrelated to the very record you have. And you’ve said records matter.
STEVE: Even if most of yours was built at the feet of Emil Jones in the Illinois legislature.
EDWARDS: You know, Senator Obama and I have differences. We have a difference about health care, which he and I have talked about before.
We have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change. But both of us are powerful voices for change.
And if I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that.
STEVE: Of course, my vote total was almost identical to Hillary’s, not Obama’s, but I’ll position myself with the guy who spanked me in order to ride the media frame.
EDWARDS: Now, what I would say is this: Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack.
STEVE: Just ask Hillary!
EDWARDS: It’s fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Senator Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story I think is just not – that’s not the kind of discussion we should be having.
STEVE: Reporters shouldn’t let all this looking-at-the-record stuff get in the way of our hope!
EDWARDS: But the one thing I do not argue with him about is he believes deeply in change. And I believe deeply in change.
STEVE: For example, he believes in deeply changing the health care system just a little bit, and I believe in changing it just a little bit more!
EDWARDS: I mean, I didn’t hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she’s not, we hear them.
STEVE: No, we heard them from Obama right after he announced them in the New York Times because his rich donors were getting queasy!
CLINTON: Making change is not about what you believe. It’s not about a speech you make. It is about working hard.
There are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire who have health care because I helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program. There are 2,700 National Guard and Reserve members who have access to health care because, on a bipartisan basis, I pushed legislation through over the objection of the Pentagon, over the threat of a veto from President Bush.
I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change. I’m running on 35 years of change. I’m running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies.
So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I’ve already made.
EDWARDS: Can I respond briefly to that?
GIBSON: Let me – I’ll let you respond. Let me – in all fairness to Governor Richardson.
RICHARDSON: Well, I’ve been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this.
*
RICHARDSON: Look, what we need is change. There’s no question. But, you know, whatever happened to experience? Is experience kind of a leper? What is wrong with, you know, what is wrong with having – what is wrong with having been, like myself, 14 years in the Congress, two Cabinet positions?
I mean, I’ve gone head-to-head with the North Koreans. We got the remains of soldiers back. We persuaded them to reduce their nuclear weapons.
What is wrong with being a governor and going to a state and giving health care to kids under 12 and creating jobs and balancing budgets?
What is wrong with being a secretary of energy who has made America, or tried to make America a land of clean energy?
My point is this: We want to change this country, but you have to have – you have to know how to do it. We need somebody that has been tested.
*
GIBSON: I’m going to bring Scott Spradling from WMUR up here and we’ll continue with some questions.
SPRADLING: Senator [Clinton], I was watching the exchange in the first half and saw what looked like a little bit of a double team that’s probably going to have a lot of people talking tomorrow morning.
CLINTON: I’m glad you noticed.
SPRADLING: The University of New Hampshire Survey Center has been consistently trying to probe the minds of New Hampshire voters and get a sense of what they think about all of you.
New Hampshire voters seem to believe that, of those of you on this stage, you are the most experienced and the most electable. In terms of change, they see Senators Obama and Edwards as the agents of change, in New Hampshire mindset.
What can you say to the voters of New Hampshire on this stage tonight who see a resume and like it, but are hesitating on the likability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more?
CLINTON: Well, that hurts my feelings.
(LAUGHTER)
SPRADLING: I’m sorry, Senator. I’m sorry.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: But I’ll try to go on.
(LAUGHTER)
He’s very likable. I agree with that. I don’t think I’m that bad.
OBAMA: You’re likable enough, Hillary. [Unsmiling]
CLINTON: You know, in 2000 we, unfortunately, ended up with a president who people said they wanted to have a beer with; who said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider; who said that he had his intuition and he was going to, you know, really come into the White House and transform the country. And, you know, at least I think there are the majority of Americans who think that was not the right choice.
So I am offering 35 years of experience making change, and the results to show for it.
I, you know, respect and like both Senator Edwards and Senator Obama.
But I think if you want to know what change each of us will bring about, look at what we’ve done. And there are a lot of differences that I think need to be aired for the voters of New Hampshire.
Because I stand on my record of experience, and I appreciate Governor Richardson’s long history of serving our country.
But I think I am an agent of change. I embody change. I think having the first woman president is a huge change with consequences across our country and the world. And that on the specific issues that I have worked on for a lifetime and the plans I have put forth, I believe I am more prepared and ready to actually deliver change.
OBAMA: What the people in Iowa were responding to, what I think that we’re seeing here in New Hampshire, is a hunger for a different kind of politics that is very specific about pushing aside special interests that have come to dominate the agenda and the debate, reducing the power of lobbyists; something that I have done.
STEVE: For example, the head of my New Hampshire campaign is a lobbyist!
OBAMA: And that’s how I worked at the state level, bringing Republicans and Democrats together to provide health insurance to people who didn’t have it.
STEVE: Um, not so much.
OBAMA: But what we haven’t seen over the last many years, even preceding George Bush, is tackling the big issues – getting health care reform finally done, getting an energy policy that works.
STEVE: That’s him linking Clinton to Bush again. She’s the quasi-incumbent and the status quo. He paid a lot of money to Axelrod and Gibbs to come up with that.
SPRADLING: Governor Richardson, I’m curious: Do you think to be president of the United States that prior executive experience is necessary?
RICHARDSON: Well, I think prior executive experience is very important. I’m the only governor here. I’m the only person here who has actually balanced budgets.
STEVE: Um, Bill, he’s not talking about you.
RICHARDSON: I’ve balanced five. I’ve created 80,000 new jobs. I’ve lowered taxes for everybody. I’ve insured kids under 12 in my state. I’ve improved education. You know, you want somebody in this position that has had executive experience.
You know, let’s face it – the next president is going to have to have foreign policy experience. And of all the candidates here, I’m the only one that’s negotiated with foreign governments, I’m the only one that has faced down the North Koreans and Saddam Hussein, I’m the only one that has had the highest national security clearance.
You know, so there’s something about having experience and having been tested.
*
SPRADLING: You served six years in the U.S. Senate.
EDWARDS: Yes.
SPRADLING: And on the campaign trail, it seems like you don’t talk a lot about the six years. The people of New Hampshire probably remember you talking about your war vote and explaining later on why you weren’t happy about that.
EDWARDS: Yes.
SPRADLING: Can you give New Hampshire voters a guide of something significant that you accomplished in your six years as a U.S. senator that would give us some guide as to what kind of president you’re going to be?
EDWARDS: Absolutely. I could tell you exactly one . . .
STEVE: Because that’s all I have!
EDWARDS: When the Democrats finally took over the United States Senate, the first issue that was brought to the table was the so-called patient’s bill of rights, so that patients and families could make their own health care decisions.
I, Senator McCain, who was here earlier, Senator Kennedy, the three of us wrote the Patient’s Bill of Rights. The three of us took on the powerful insurance industry and their lobby, every single day of the fight for the Patient’s Bill of Rights. And we got that bill through the United States Senate and got it passed.
CLINTON: Can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute? Because I think that it is important to make some kind of an assessment of these statements.
You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the patient bill of rights through the Senate – it never got through the House. We don’t have a patient’s bill of rights.
And, you know, when it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obama’s chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies.
You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it.
STEVE: That’s because ComEd (D-Emil Jones) wanted it.
CLINTON: I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare.
Now we’re all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.
So, you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.
You know, what we’ve got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the overdue influence that they have in our government.
SPRADLING: Senator, does that mean that you’re further down the road than your opponents in this? Or are you saying that you can do things that these folks can’t do, when it comes to being an agent of change?
CLINTON: Absolutely. Because I’ve been an agent of change. You know, you go back 35 years, you know, I worked to help make the case for the law that, thankfully, required that public schools give an education to children with special needs. I worked to reform education and health care in Arkansas against, you know, some pretty tough odds.
In the White House, I helped to create, you know, health care for kids and, you know, reform a lot of the other programs – like taking on the drug companies.
*
GIBSON: I’ve covered Washington for a long time. And I know President Clinton came to Washington talking about change. President Bush came to Washington talking about change.
STEVE: And they both accomplished it!
CLINTON: President Clinton inherited a deficit, a debt that had been quadrupled in the previous 12 years.
Now, anybody who doesn’t think taking on the special interests to raise taxes on corporations, raise taxes on the wealthy, begin to whittle away at the deficit, to be able to leave with a balanced budget and a surplus – if that didn’t take a lot of change that actually produced results, then I think we’ve got amnesia.
OBAMA: Look, I think it’s easy to be cynical and just say, “You know what? It can’t be done, because Washington is designed to resist change.”
But in fact, there have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better.
STEVE: It’s not the people who have to do better, it’s our leadership. What the hell are the people supposed to do?
OBAMA: I actually give Bill Clinton enormous credit for having balanced those budgets during those years. It did take political courage for him to do that.
But we never built the majority and coalesced the American people around being able to get the other stuff done.
STEVE: If only his vice president had been elected.
*
Beachwood Analysis
As usual, Hillary wins when it comes to substance and reality. Handily. It’s just true, like it or not. This transcript was not edited to be pro-Hillary; it was edited for substance and with the exception of a couple Richardson snippets, the rest was boilerplate. Hell, Walter Mondale won every debate he had with Ronald Reagan, but the public preferred Reagan. We’re not a serious people. Still, I’m not sure Obama is ever less inspiring than when he’s rehearsing the same airy rhetoric in these things. Edwards is shrill and slippery. It would have been nice to have Kucinich and Biden there. Bill Richardson is making an idiot of himself and wasting everybody’s time. So, who is this Mike Bloomberg again?
*
Catch up with the Mystery Debate Theater catalogue.

Permalink

Posted on January 7, 2008