The Democratic Debate

The Democratic DebateThe Democratic candidates participate in a debate at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago.(Photo: Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press)

Debate Wrap We caught up with Joan McCarter, a contributing editor to
DailyKos and one of the moderators of the panel. She was thrilled with the way it went, saying the candidates seemed to feed off the energy in the room.

She said the moderators were aiming for a more sophisticated debate than what transpired on YouTube last month, in which candidates were asked questions via video submitted by the public.

“We wanted to reflect that we have a highly involved, high-information audience, and we wanted to reflect their concerns,” she said.

The exchange on lobbyists and whether the candidates would accept their money, she said, “was one of the most honest moments we’ve had.”

That exchange may reflect a shifting of the power center of the Democratic party away from the moderates and toward the grassroots, or as they are called here, the Netroots.

One question she didn’t get to was why the candidates came to this bloggers’ convention but did not attend the recent meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, the moderate group championed by President Clinton. “We’ve reached a point where D.L.C. politics are an anachronism,” she said.

Jeff Zeleny filed this article from the event.

Politics TV has posted video from the debate

2:50 p.m. (Chicago time)

Mrs. Clinton has been holding back from the populist dive, even when it comes to election campaigning. All the candidates said they would go to all 50 states as part of a nationwide campaign to seek votes. Mrs. Clinton said she did not know whether she would go to all 50 states or not, but she would have a 50-state strategy. She would say to Republicans: “You may think you don’t want to vote for a Democrat, but let’s have a conversation.”

Mr. Edwards got back on his hobby horse against Washington lobbyists, saying his rivals did not need to wait until the next election to start reforming.

Matt Bai, a writer for The Times magazine who was the moderator, noted that this was the second time he had made this point and turned to Mrs. Clinton, who raised
her arms like, hey, I’m just sitting here.

In her ongoing attempt to present herself as the most experienced candidate who knows her way around the corridors of power, she went on to say that she would not agree to refuse money from lobbyists. Based on her 35 years of public life, she said, no one would believe she would be influenced by a lobbyist. The audience sharply disagreed
with this response.

“The important thing is what you have fought for and what you will fight for,” she persisted, and pledged to “absolutely be on the front lines of the change we need.”

Fighting the resistance in the room, she went on to thank the people in the room “for being part of the progressive moment in America,” adding that she wished they had been around in 1993 and 1994 when she was trying to pass health care. That got some applause.

She was then asked if she would continue to take money from Washington lobbyists, she said: “Yes, because they represent real Americans, nurses, social workers, and yes they represent corporations _ that employ a lot of people.” Speaking as if in a general election and not to Democratic primary voters only, she added: I want to represent the entire country,” and by then she drew some applause.

Mr. Obama then brought the hammer down on Mrs. Clinton. He noted that it was the Washington lobbyists who had killed her health care effort when she was first lady. “They have an agenda,” he said. “They aren’t participating in the public interest.” This brought the audience to its feet, with wild cheers and some cries of “Take down!
Take down!.”

Mr. Edwards got into the act too, asking the audience how many of them had a Washington lobbyist working for them. About two people raised their hands. “You are not represented by Washington lobbyists!” he said to applause.

Then Mr. Kucinich brought Mr. Edwards up short by asking if he would still take money from Wall Street hedge funds.

Mr. Edwards said he would never take a dime from drug company lobbyists and said that until there was public financing of elections, “we have to raise money from nurses, doctors, and people who work on Wall Street to have a serious campaign.” But, he
concluded, he has never and never will take money from a Washington lobbyist.

That concluded perhaps the most spirited and vigorous encounter of the Democratic candidates yet.

2:30 p.m.Members of the public have joined the bloggers here, making this a large and spirited audience. The hall is crowded, with many others sitting on the floor and lining the side aisles.

In a segment about the war in Iraq and the war on terror, Mr. Obama, who has indicated in earlier debates that he would not retaliate militarily against an attack as swiftly as others might, said that there was no excuse for 9/11 and “we need to hunt down
those who perpetrated that tragedy.” He added: “By the way, they weren’t in Iraq.” He said that the United States had acted in a way that fueled anti-American sentiment, and “we now have chaos.” Al Qaeda is even stronger now than it was before 9/11, he said.

Mr. Edwards said that President Bush has relied on a “bumper sticker” about a global war on terror to justify everything he has done. “We shouldn’t accept George Bush’s way of framing this discussion,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton was asked if this was not a war on terror, what is a more accurate way to look at it.

She said the question wasn’t pointed enough, and added that there was not as much anti-American sentiment abroad as anti-Bush sentiment. She also said, “It is absolutely fair to say we have made some progress in becoming safer” because the nation’s first
responders were better prepared and vigilant, but, she said, but we
were still not safe enough. “It is a global war against terrorists,” she said. “Terrorism is a tactic.”

Perhaps the most enthusiastic response came when the candidates were asked if they would have a blogger in the White House.

Mr. Edwards again drew an enormous response, with this: “I will hire a White House blogger and her name will be Elizabeth Edwards.” His wife, a long-time blogger who is believed to have written on DailyKos under an anonymous name, has a huge following on the Internet and is a cult hero to some here.

(Former Senator Mike Gravel got a great laugh in responding to this question by asking why hire anyone else if the purpose was to communicate directly? )

2:45 p.m. (Chicago time) Mr. Edwards just scored again big time. He was asked how the would restore balance among the three branches of government and he was back on his populist pitch, regardless of the question.

He said that on the first day of his administration he would close the prison at Guantanamo. He said America would not engage in torture, there would be no more secret prisons. The applause rose with almost every word he spoke. He then switched subjects and said the Democratic party and his fellow candidates should not wait to reform Washington but should start now by refusing to take money from Washington lobbyists. He acknowledged that Mr. Obama already did not take such money, making it clear that he wanted to put Mrs. Clinton on the spot. The applause crescendoed, drowning out much of his statement.

In a subsequent question, a Freudian slip by one of the moderators showed just what he might be up against: the moderator referred to Senator Clinton as President Clinton.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich also scored big with his call for the impeachment of
Vice President Cheney.

FIRST POST: Now we’re over in the huge ballroom at McCormick Place, where Mrs. Clinton has joined the other Democratic presidential candidates — Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel. The candidates, who are sitting on stage, face more than 1,500 people.

Mrs. Clinton said health care would be her highest domestic priority and got some applause. Mr. Obama said he would help balance the budget by not spending $275 million “every single day in Iraq,” and he won more applause.

Then a fiery Mr. Edwards lit the room on fire with his populist pitch. “We need big change,” he said. He said he had listened to his rivals, but insurance companies and drug companies “aren’t going to voluntarily give away their power.” He got a rousing response.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

A room full of hate mongers listening to the Dems pander. What a party!

Will someone ask the Dems why they favor giving government benefits, all paid from the taxes of y hard-working americans, to illegals?

“Incredible” has new meaning!

The idea that the Democrats are “left” and the GOP is “right” is laughable, as they are both squarely on the right.

Kucinich is the only member of this debate truly on the left and is therefore immediately relegated to also-ran status by our corporate overlords, who filter our choices down to the appropriate pro-imperialist few. Edwards is firmly in the middle/right. The rest, especially Obama and Hillary, are solidly on the right, along with the rest of the Democratic leadership.

The ignorance of the American public is clearly seen in the “Democrat” vs. “Republican” debates, which implies that the two are not in fact the same business party, with common goals (imperialist power and control for corporate profit for the wealthy elite) and only slightly varying strategies and tactics for achieving those goals. The Democrats (led by Hillary and Obama) believe it’s a smarter move to let some crumbs fall to the masses (universal health care that still caters to big insurance, for example) to keep them complacent, while the GOP (Bush, Cheney, Lieberman-yes Lieberman, Giuliani, Cheney) believes you don’t have to give any crumbs away when a truly strong propaganda campaign (fear-mongering and misguided patriotism, for example) can fool the “bewildered herd” easily enough.

Of course, these facts don’t get in the way of alleged “leftists” putting their support behind the Obama’s and Clinton’s of the world, in spite of the fact that they have more in common with Dick Cheney than with anyone truly on the left.

How did this happen?

The largest factor, though one of many, is the right-wing led media, which has slowly but surely filtered the debate further and further right until we are at the current place where firmly on the right is considered left and far right-wing ideology is considered merely moderate right.

What’s that you say? What about the “liberal media” conspiracy?

It’s a myth. One of the great triumphs of elitist propaganda.

The fact of the matter is right-wing billionaires own the majority of the mainstream corporate media outlets, including the NY Times. They get their funding, through advertising, from billion dollar corporations owned by similar right-wingers. They hire right-wing editors and producers who control content. Then they hire “liberal” reporters who are emasculated as soon as they walk through the door and have no real power as to what their assignments are or what gets published.

Predictably, right-wing think tanks love to point out the “liberal” reporters as their “proof” of a “liberal media” conspiracy; completely ignoring the right wing ideologues who ultimately pull the strings.

The right wing propaganda in this country is an enormous problem. One needs to merely compare stories reported throughout the world, which are summarily IGNORED here in the states, and you can see it clear as day. It’s the heart of the problem and it’s only getting worse as media outlets are being consolidated into fewer and fewer right-wing hands.

What do we do?

To quote a fellow blogger, “concerned citizen”:

“It is well and good to understand realpolitik. It is also well and good, however, to insist that one’s nation live up to its own stated principles. It is the hypocrisy of our nation to which any real patriot ought to vociferously object. We Americans ought to be holding our leadership to the highest possible standards that our own culture and political history have enshrined in our most cherished documents — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
When our “leadership” has blatantly violated these standards of behavior both domestically and internationally, it is our duty as citizens to object, to protest, to take political action, to vote, to educate, to lift the veil of ignorance and obfuscation, to criticize, to raise the uncomfortable issues that no one wants to discuss.

Yes, we have much that is admirable in this nation. Those who genuinely love these principles must never quietly acquiesce in their destruction. Those who see democracy under corporate assault must say so. Those who see families being destroyed by an economic system that requires two parents to work fulltime while their children become “latchkey kids” are less likely to fall in love with corporate economics.

When our nation commits dastardly acts against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in other nations it is the American citizen’s duty and responsibility to dissent, to criticize, to deplore, to protest against the defilement of our most sacred principles. It is our duty as citizens to upbraid those who perpetrate these offenses.

It is not patriotic to wrap oneself in the flag and trumpet “America, Love it or Leave it”. It is not patriotic to stick one’s head in the sand when our country does morally and legally indefensible deeds at home or abroad. True citizens must always dissent and object to these things. The price of liberty is constant vigilance.”

Amen, brother…

Both Edwards and Obama hit Hillary for taking PAC money. Hillary is expecting us not to believe that she is influenced by it!

What nobody has raised yet is the issue of the $41 million that Bill Clinton has been paid in “speaking fees” in front of lobby groups and corporations.

Are we really expected to believe that Hillary is immune to the $125,000 paycheck that Bill brings home from the “Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers?” She says to look at her actions — well, if we do that we see that she gave import tax breaks (S311.IS/109th) that benefited CLSA corporation, a Chinese investment firm. By an odd coincidence, CLSA has paid Bill Clinton a total of $700,000 in speaking fees.

Anyone who still believes Obama is “experienced and naive” clearly hasn’t been paying attention. If anybody actually bothered to watch his foreign policy speech, they would have realized that for pure substance, none of the pretenders onstage(Clinton, Edwards) have anywhere near the breadth of knowledge and ability to state things extremely candidly as Obama does.

The man doesn’t speak in cliches and canned platitudes lacking in substance. Where Obama outshines everyone is for sheer depth; It is one thing to speak, it is a whole other thing to speak with actual substance. Nobody does it better than Obama.

As soon as Americans start to see some of his tremendous speeches and just how well-spoken and candid he is when talking about complex issues, he will take over this race.

He already has demonstrated his mettle by his own actions: Opposing the war in Iraq when Edwards and Hillary supported it as well as refusing to take PAC money when Edwards does and Hillary accepts money from everybody up to the propagandist-in-chief Rupert Murdoch.

And even without accepting PAC money, Obama is still leading in Iowa and has outraised Hillary and Edwards. Hillary looks very vulnerable right now because she has nothing novel or substantial, and that’s why they are trying to discredit Obama.

Obama is not just about “politics of hope”. He is also about politics of straight-talk and substance.

I score this one for Obama he naild Hillary as she defend lobbyist who denied folks Healthcare… she is their bag and see nothing wrong with that…watch as they spin this as a victory and the media will go with them…Obama did the right thing by standing up and defending the interest of common folks not lobbyist…

Abe, I couldn’t agree more. The washington pundicts think we’re fool…Go Barack!!

#3

Actually, “The ignorance of the American public is clearly seen in…” posts like yours….

“Imperialist power, control of corporate profits for the wealthy elite….. yada, yada, yada.

Next you will be telling us the wonders communism/socialism and heaping praise on world butchers like Stalin, Mao, and Castro….all while ignoring the millions who have been butchered in the name of your holy socialism grail.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance against losers and fascists like you.

Power to the people, Brother.

I also find it curious that from the media we hear a chorus of the same song; “Hillary has dominated the debates, She has shown experience, She’s the front runner”. This despite the polls from nearly all the debates that show Obama was the preferred candidate, outpaced Hillary in the money vote 3 to 2 without PAC or lobbyists, is in the better position in polls from Ia., Nev. and NH. It’s very strange to see the talking heads who are usually at each other throats now concur that Obama has slit his political throat. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I have more than a sneaking suspicion that these “experts” feed at the same trough.

These are the same experts who failed at their fourth estate duties, miserably. They now, shamelessly, still espouse their, ???, garbage, what would you call it. I truely welcome the impact of the internet in the political process.

OK I am going to take this line by line…

HRC said that “Based on her 35 years of public life, she said, no one would believe she would be influenced by a lobbyist.”

What an insult to our collective intelligence!
If lobbyists were not successfully influencing what should be the public discourse, why would they be throwing millions of dollars around DC?

Come on Hillary, as Edwards says why would you wait until next election? You have enough personal wealth to fund your own campaign, and given the name recognition, should you have the courage to step off the edge, the true patriots may just reward you with their votes.

No integrity to be found here….

Cheers,

Edwards Tilted the Emoto-meter – again

As someone who actually saw the YearlyKOS live, I must say that HRC (the presumed nominee of the NY Times – not owned by Murdock) has opened up another flank to scrutiny. PAC and bundled corporate money is clearly a preponderance of her fund raising. Both Edwards and Obama clearly separated space with Sen. Clinton over her campaign’s financing.

Edwards once again got the highest focus group emotional responses when he expressed that the need for Big Change, especially in Health Care, will require taking power away from Big Insurance and Big Pharmaceuticals (and incidentally, Big Oil).

Meanwhile, expecting Edwards to return earnings from publisher HarperCollins (owned by Murdock’s News Corp) is like expecting Sen. Clinton’s husband to give up his next fifty dinners and fees for “public interest” groups. The difference is that publishing and media in this country are controlled by five-six corporate entities. How do you earn a living without getting a corporate check?

I heard a lot of things that I liked but none of them from Hillary. And the first poster, Mr. Bob Brown, needs to grow a brain of his own and quit parroting every lie his GOP masters tell him.

Obama’s the Choice August 4, 2007 · 6:44 pm

Abe @ 5, right on. Obama is starting to throw more elbows and getting his message out. Clinton looks tired. Obama is full of energy, his message is clear, concise, tough, and Charlie Rose last night looks to be in the Obama camp with his guests last night. People from all walks are trumpteting Obama. He was stoic and staid the last few months because he did not want to burn out early, probably, and did not want to burn everyone else out. He is by far the most serious contender right now–he is making Clinton look glib, and Edwards disingenuious.

As for Edwards, he is the true definition of a demogauage. His plea for change, change, change cannot happen wholesale, and Obama, like the NYT article provided, is shrewd and pragmatic. Change will come with Obama-he doesn’t need the cameras and audience in front of him talking about his progressive views. Did Edwards ever sponsor a bill while Senator that dealt with poverty, special interests and his other pet projects? Populist in my book is a dirty word, and Edwards is a populist scrouging for votes. Obama does not need to pound his progressive views every chance he gets because he has a proven, well-documented track record. Go Obama!

Once again the Times opens a forum for rabid Clinton-haters. There appears to be an army of (self-trained?) internet professionals who manage to jump-start the discussion in the most rabid anti-Hillary (Obama is always correct because he speaks from the heart?) fashion.
What’s wrong with a president who makes “calculated” decisions? Abraham Lincoln did!!!
Can’t you hold your breathing for 30 seconds before the attack?

Edwards again shows himself to be good VP material.

Clinton’s campaign has worked overtime to portray her as the most experienced candidate. She’s experienced at being a Governor’s wife and a President’s wife. I’d trust her to pick out china, center pieces and table clothes. She would not be in any race anywhere for any office if it were not for being married to Bill.

Ask yourselves; could Mrs. Clinton stand on her own two feet?

I like how Obama will undermine the sovernignty of Pakistan and possibly incite another civil war for a couple terrorists here and there. Hillary is as bad as Bush when it comes to the use of American power, anyone who read her speeches before and after the Iraq war can see that. Even her Weselyan feminist friends, though I will admit that she would’ve ran that illegal occupations better. Edwards? A fool pandering to the poor but will shift to the far-right if he becomes President.

American Democracy reminds me more of Russian/Chinese “elections,” where a rich obligracy decides the results to narrow fields before the choice is even made. No wonder most Americans, myself included, dont vote.

“Mr. Edwards got back on his hobby horse against Washington lobbyists…”

What is this tendency even in the blogoshpere to diminish and infantalize Edwards?

This is for Bob Brown: First of all, “illegals,” by which I assume you mean illegal immigrants, do actually work, often at very unpleasant jobs and do have taxes withheld from their paychecks. So as long as they are here, they might as well get the services (like schools) that they are paying for. Second, it’s probably better for everyone if the kids of illegal immigrants are in school rather than out on the street causing trouble.

The Democratic candidates won’t appear on Fox News but have no problem showing up to a convention of left wing hate mongers. That says it all about this bunch.

I’m supporting Obama, but will vote for Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee. I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Over my lifetime, however, I have seen the right-wing, including the right-wing media, become stronger and more influential,in part because progressives reject candidates who seek common ground with moderates. We cannot sink our own boat again — remember Nader? – and most Americans will not vote for a left progressive candidate. I am supporting Obama, but will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee.

The most important question to be asked Clinton came from Edwards, and goes to the heart of her qualifications as a candidate; Clinton wants a national health care plan, but other than saying that Americans must make a “concerted effort” to obtain such a plan, she has offered not a single suggestion regarding how to overcome the opposition of two huge lobby groups, the drug industry and the insurance industry. To me, the “concerted effort” line sounds like Abbie Hoffman’s plan to end the Vietnam war by having us all link hands and levitate the Pentagon; it’s stirring, but won’t get by the laws of physics (or politics). What, exactly, does Clinton mean to do to achieve national health care insurance, and why does she think that her strategy will work when so many others — including her own — have failed?

You know, …..Bob Brown,

if you don’t want to vote for a democrat after the debacle that has been the last six or seven years, then perhaps you deserve more of the same.

As for me, I would like to actually fight terrorism instead of setting up contracts for Halliburton. I would like to see an end to the carnage in Iraq. I would like steps taken to ensure that my kids will have air to breath, water to drink and food to eat in the future (if you think that environmental concerns are about anything else, then you really don’t understand the science.) I would like our economy to run smoothly and enrich all hard working Americans. I would like a president and V. P. who don’t lie through their teeth about major policy decisions and the reasons behind them. I would also like to end the torture of innocent people in Gitmo (yes many are likely not guilty, but how would we know without a trial, huh?). I would even like a president who spoke English as if he/she was familiar with many permutations of the language and a large number of ideas.

Vote D in ’08

Once again, the Washington pro-lobbyist, Hilary Clinton sounded like Bush-Cheney when she nailvely characterized Bush’s war in Iraq as a war against the perpretrators of 9/11 instead of honestly calling it a deviation from a real war against terrorism, which this administration has failed to wage.

Sam Lewis (#8):

Last time I checked, “yada, yada, yada” was not considered much of a rebuttal. I’ll gladly debate you on the facts, should you actually be able to find any that either support your views or contradict mine.

Or, you can feel free to continue taking my post and turning it into something it never was; namely a positive endorsement of Stalin, Mao or Castro. But I’ve come to expect that kind of response to the truth within my posts. Indoctrinated folks like to make up things to argue about that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote in order to avoid a real debate that they cannot win.

The truth is the truth is the truth.

I’m curious as to which point of mine you actually believe to be false.

I’m looking forward to your response.

Surprised by Clinton’s honesty here. It would have been easy for her to say she’d “only rarely” be taking lobbyist money, and then, when called on it later, to define “rarely” down. She didn’t B.S. That may not score any points with the many Obama spinners here, but to my mind, as someone who was never crazy about Hilary, the honesty is refreshing.