Contrasting Styles At Democratic Debate

Despite the nature of last night's Democratic debate in Charleston, South Carolina, there were these moments of substance:

Senator Obama, in an obvious swipe at Senator Clinton: "...but what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq is before we went in." After the Illinois Senator commented further, followed by applause, did Anderson Cooper question Mrs. Clinton about the remark? "To the question of, did the troops- Are the troops dying in vain, though. Yes or no?" (Generously, we can call that "conflict-averse"; not so generously, more conspiratorily, that Cooper did not want to press Clinton on Obama's big issue, that he is the one Senator on stage who voted against authorizing the war.)

Former Senator Edwards on gay marriage in a response to Reverend Longcrier: "But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know... my wife Elizabeth... actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it." John, we know you are thoughtful. And conflicted. And respectful of the opinions of others, especially those of your wife. That, in the minds of many voters, is what separates Democrats from Republicans. Republicans seem so self-assured- or arrogant. The "no apologies" party. The "Daddy Party." Try this, given your views. "I support full partnership benefits for everyone, regardless of sexual preference, how they were born, fully assured of God's love. But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and do not support legalizing gay marriage."

But John Edwards had what I believe was the best, most meaningful moment of the debate, contrasting himself to Clinton and Obama: "And the question is, do you believe compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies- they are notgoing to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

And you know I can't get through a blog of this sort without criticizing Hillary Clinton. Rob Porter from Irvine, California asked Mrs. Clinton "would you use this word (liberal) to define yourself?" After taking 194 words to describe herself as "a modern progressive," Clinton was asked by Cooper "So you wouldn't use the word "liberal," you'd say progressive?" HRC nodded, to applause.
How about this, Senator? "Yes, I am a liberal. I'm in favor of clean air, clean water, and national parks we all are proud of, despite assaults from special interests. I'm in favor of good wages for all Americans, and distressed at the record high of mortgage foreclosures we've recently seen in our country. I'm in favor of equal opportunity- not necessarily equal outcomes- for everyone, regardless of race, religion, or gender. And I'm in favor of a leader who is strong enough to pursue diplomacy first, to talk with our enemies when necessary so our people are safe and secure, and to resort to war not as a first, but as a last, option. And I'll be that President starting January 21, 2009."
But embracing the word "liberal" requires courage.

A YouTube Debate: Ridiculous

How deep have we become mired in artificial (computer technology once was referred to as "artificial intelligence") superficiality?
Last night's CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential debate was shallow, inspid, a stunt. Nevertheless, I am pretentious enough to comment on some of the questions and responses (my comments in parentheses).

Zach Kempf in Provo, Utah, before lapsing into his 128-word question: "What's up? I'm running out of tape. I have to hurry." (Are we really interested in Zach's schedule?)

Unidentified (third questioner): "All of you say you'll be able to work with Republicans. Well, here's a test..." (O.K,. I get it- you're the teacher, the one with the knowledge, and we're the uninformed students.)

Unidentified questioner: "Is (sic) African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery? I know you all are going to run around this question, dipping and dodging, so let's see how far you all can get." (Wrong. Three candidates were queried- Edwards and Richardson against, Kucinich in favor.)
Mary and Jen: "If you were elected President of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other?" Good question, and after the response of Dennis Kucinich and before those of Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, host Anderson Cooper helpfully rephrased the question: "Senator Dodd, you supported the Defense of Marriage Act. What's your position?" An even better question would have been: "Senators Dodd and Biden, you alone among the candidates were in the United States Senate at the time President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Were you right to support a bill which in part defined marriage as strictly between a man and a woman?"
Mitch from Philadelphia, before implying in his 116-word question that he's opposed to a pullout from Iraq: "Are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation..." (Please, tell us more about your "blankin" anger.)

Unidentified questioner, mother of an American soldier: "How many more soldiers must die while these political games continue in our government?..." (What exactly are these "political games?" And who is playing them? Are, say, George W. Bush, General Petraeus, and John Murtha "playing games?")

Unidentified questioner: "Dear Presidential candidates, see those flags over my shoulder? They covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son. Someday, mine will join them..." And how many family members do you have serving in uniform?" (John McCain served; so did Jim Webb. Note to Chris Matthews and others: service in the military does not bind someone to a pro- or anti- war position.)
Another "questioner": "Hey, there, my name's Jackie Broyles. And I'm Dunlap." (went on to ask numerous questions about Al Gore in a Southern accent- Aren't we so impressed with ourselves making fun of Southerners?)

Anderson Cooper: "Senator Obama, are the soldiers dying in vain?" (Anderson, these folks are running for President of the United States. None of them is going to say American soldiers are dying in vain, so I regret that you are being denied participation in the sound bite of the century... True, Senator Gravel stated that the soldiers are dying in vain, but he can afford to be honest, given that he's not going to be nominated for President, Vice-President, or anything else. The former Alaska Senator could form his own political party- and be denied its nomination.)

Sheena Currell: "I'm from (inaudible), South Carolina. Who was your favorite teacher and why? (And what's your favorite color?)

Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan: "Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. (Brandishing a rife) this is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Tell me your views on gun control." Joe Biden, pithily: "I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help." A good moment, which obscures the likelihood that a meaningful answer could have been elicited if the debate sponsors hadn't gone for the cheap and dramatic visual with the outrageous characterization of a weapon (allegedly illegally obtained) as a baby. Rather, the candidates should have been asked their views on registration, straw purchases, and/or other specifics about gun control; or asked how an effective gun control measure, one which is not circumvented as the questioner bragged he had, can be enacted.

And Senator Biden had the best comment of them all, in response to the question from Jason Koop (is this guy related to C. Everett Koop?) of Colorado Springs: "... I would like for each of you to look to the candidate to your left and tell the audience one thing you like and one thing you dislike about that particular candidate. And remember, be honest." (Because as we all know, politicans always are honest when you tell them to be.) "Dennis (Kucinich) and I have been friends for twenty-five years. I think this is a ridiculous exercise." He didn't mean it in regard to the format of the debate itself, but could have.

This is not to say that the questioners are vacuous, thoughtless, or even especially self-indulgent. Other debates have included from the public questions which were on-point, eliciting somewhat revealing answers. The problem is with the YouTube format. Sure, it's possible that this silly superficiality is the wave of the future. But why now? You want a sound system for your car that not only is technologically advanced, but which works. And if your car tires are the latest in technology, but haven't been tested, I don't want to be your passenger.

Debating Terrorism In South Carolina

At the Democratic Presidential debate in April, 2007 in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the candidates "Do you believe there is such a thing as a 'global war on terror'?" Not surprisingly, Hillary Rodham Clinton, always anxious to prove that a woman can be as tough on the "bad guys" as a man, shot up her arm, and Senator Obama followed suit.
John Edwards did not. Later, he would explain "it's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans."
Of course he's right, and when an Administration spokesman told Mike Allen of Time "'war on terror' is what I think resonates most with the country," the cat was let out of the bag, the political origin of the phrase laid bare. Further, not all "terror" is "terrorism." Merriam-Webster defines "terror" as "a state of intense fear," not unlike my last encounter with a roller coaster, but accusing Six Flags of being a terrorist organization would be a little much.
But I'll dispense with semantics, so as not to be accused of fondness for "nuance," which was not helpful in 2004 to candidate Kerry, though perhaps the "nuances" helped him dominate the incumbent in three consecutive debates.
The real problem with Edwards' charge that Bush's "war on terror" is a "bumper sticker slogan," as he explained to the Council on Foreign Relations, is that it is merely a bumper sticker slogan. Think diversion of soldiers from Afghanistan to Iraq paving the way for a resurgent Al-Qaeda (the global Al-Qaeda, not AQI). Think an anti-satellite weapon successfully tested by the world's largest nation, by its Communist regime, as part of arguably the most rapid expansion of armed forces in the world. Think supporting an immigration policy bringing delight to GOP corporate paymasters while further endangering national security. Think 5% (5%!) of the cargo entering our ports being inspected- and trying to turn port security over to the United Arab Emirates. This Administration is as devoted to a war on terrorism as it is to the concept of open government. (O.K., a little more.) The GOP is vulnerable to a charge that its leadership, and its Stepfords in Congress, have done little to make Americans feel safe. This is a potent political argument, far more so than convincing Americans that this crew has endangered civil liberties- which to most people is an abstract concept. And in a time when the Secretary of Homeland Security can raise the "threat level" arbitrarily (we've been down that road before) to yellow, red, or whatever the political requirement of the time is, beware of the whispering campaign characterizing supporters of Constitutional rights as "effete," out-of-touch, or failing to "support the troops." Moreover, if this country is hit before the next Presidential election with another terrorist attack (and given how terrorist organizations have prospered under this Republican President, they may want another), Democrats cannot allow themselves to be portrayed as the party that embraced "rights" at the expense of "security."
Sure, this assumes that the GOP would present simplistic, narrow-minded, distorted arguments. Uh-oh.

Debate at Howard University

Some musings about the substance of the Democratic debate (one of the "All-American Presidential Forums" sponsored by PBS) at Howard University on Thursday evening, 6/28/07:

1) It doesn't seem like asking too much for a Democratic candidate to say directly that he/she is opposed to outsourcing, in response to a question specifically about the topic. Yet, Kucinich (who emphasized unfair trade), Biden, Clinton, and Gravel (who seemed unopposed to the practice) didn't find it within themselves to state unequivocally that it is harmful.

2) Asked about income inequality, Edwards and Biden- only- stated definitively that the portion of the Bush tax cuts decreasing income taxes on the wealthy should be ended now. The reticence of the frontrunners, Clinton and Obama, may not have been accidental.

3) Queried about crime and punishment, we heard all the usual explanations for the disproportionately high rate of incarceration among blacks: greater penalties for possession of crack cocaine than powdered cocaine; racial injustice in the criminal justice system; mandatory minimums; incarceration for non-violent offenses; emphasis on incarceration rather than rehabilitation; an incompetent Attorney General. How about this? The absence of a Public Defender system in many states. In Texas, for instance, a private attorney (at public expense) is selected for indigent defendants by an elected judge- who often repays (or punishes) attorneys with assignments in response to their need for campaign funds or votes. Poor defendants, disproportionately minority, often end up with disinterested, overworked, and/or incompetent counsel. And Texas is notorious for its proclivity to impose the death penalty.

4) Over at TPM Cafe, Eric Kleefeld and T.W. Farnum lament the lengthy (and, I found, self-serving) introduction, allowing the audience to applaud (always a mistake), and the limit imposed upon each candidate for answering a question in the second half of the debate. They note also Chris Dodd's remark "I was going to say, Tavis, I'll take global warming for $600" and Tavis Smiley's response "and I was going to say, if you were Paris Hilton, I'd give you an hour. But you're not." Could there be anything more superficial than Smiley's rejoinder? Perhaps Hillary Clinton's smiling response, "That was good. That was good, Tavis."

5) Senator Clinton stated "Let me just put this in perspective. If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country."
Let me put this into perspective, Senator Clinton. Acording to the Foundation for AIDS Research Public Policy, Congress in fiscal 2005 appropriated $2.9 billion, a 2.1% increase over fiscal year 2004, for AIDS research. AVERT.org (apparently an international AIDS charity), cites 17,011 deaths in the U.S.A. from AIDS in 2005. That computes to an average of $170,477.92 per AIDS death. According to FORBES.com, the comparable figures for various diseases are: breast cancer, $20,650; Alzheimer's disease, $10,214; lung cancer, $1,905; pancreatic cancer, $1,724; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, $458.
Pandering is one thing, Senator Clinton. Deliberate, exorbitant distortion of the truth is something I'd rather ascribe to politicians (usually Republican) dedicated to the wealth and power of corporate interests. But I guess I have.

Clinton And Hypotheticals

This from electioncentral.tpmcafe.com:

"Part of the vibe about Hillary winning the debate might come from this: She led a revolt against Wolf Blitzer's frequent use of 'raise your hand' questions. "Well we're not goint to engage in these hypotheticals," Hillary said, in response to a question about a missile strike against Osama bin Laden that might kill civilians. "I mean one of the jobs of a president is being very reasoned in approaching these issues. And I don't think it's useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms."

But it is only showing respect for the voter when a candidate presenting herself for election, who purports (accurately, in this case) to be qualified to be President, is willing to answer hypothetical questions. In fact, any question about what an aspirant would do once elected is a "hypothetical" question. As an example: "Senator, you're being asked to give a conservative Republican President authority to act as he finds necessary in Iraq. If you vote to give him that authority and he does not continue inspections- which you believe he should- and instead launches a military attack. Will that maintain our national security, or perhaps lead to the deaths of thousands of American servicemen, encourage recruitment of terrorists, bog us down in a civil war, and entice an Iraqi government to move closer to a militant Shiite regime in Iran?" Likely response: "I'm sorry, I can't get into hypotheticals."

This was not Mrs. Clinton's only refusal in this manner to answer a question. Asked if as President she would enact a no-fly zone in Darfur, the Senator responded "Well, but we're not going to engage in these hypotheticals."
The failure to consider "hypotheticals" bears an eerie similarity to the Senator's refusal to admit that she erred in supporting the original Iraqi war resolution in 2002. She says (seemingly confirmed by a statement she gave in the Senate at the time) that she wanted the President to try to gain U.N. approval for "unfettered" inspections in Iraq and that his management of the war would not be a colossal failure. But he didn't, and it was. An officeholder must consider hypothetical situations, such as: whether the person in charge will act as I wish (he didn't) and how effective he/she will be in pursuing an alternative policy (not at all). If she did not consider those factors, she was shortsighted; if she did, she didn't take into account that the man in charge was George W. Bush.

Don't want to consider hypothetical situations? Then every policy/law that sounds good, we'll enact it. Implementation? Unimportant. We can always say "with what we knew at the time...."

Similarly, consider Mrs. Clinton's steadfast refusal to admit that President Clinton erred when he proposed and implemented the "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays in the military. (Full disclosure: I was in favor of it.) Rationalizing it as "a transitional policy," Senator Clinton now favors ending it. In addition to citing discharge of Arabic linguists, she asserted "after the first Gulf War there was a big flood of discharges of gays and lesbians because they let them serve and then after they finished the war, then they discharged them." If this did occur (without a flaunting of their sexual status the approach was designed in part to prevent), a violation of the spirit and the letter of the law occurred and the policy clearly failed. Hence, one finds it difficult for those gays (male and female) punished for serving their country and complying with the policy to be comforted by the Senator's assurance that it was merely a "transitional" policy. Thanks, folks, we needed you as guinea pigs.