Reflections on the Debate (Philadelphia)- no. 3


If only it were so. Very early in the 10/31/07 Democratic Presidential debate sponsored by MSNBC, Senator Obama charged "and Senator Clinton, in her campaign, I think has been for NAFTA previously. Now she’s against it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago, and then most recently has taken a different position..."

Actually, although Senator Clinton, eager to have unions either endorse her or forego endorsing the more economically-progressive Obama or Edwards, has expressed some misgivings about the North American Free Trade Agreement, but has not opposed it. She still supports the NAFTA, negotiated in her husband's administration, despite the serious cost in American jobs.

But at least the Illinois Senator found his voice in criticizing the frontrunner. More aggressive, and effective, in doing so, was John Edwards. Soon after Obama's comments, Edwards explained


Let me talk a little bit about what I see as the choice the voters have. I think that from my perspective, President Bush over the last seven years has destroyed the trust relationship America and its president. In fact, I think he has destroyed the trust relationship between the president of the United States and the rest of the world.

I think it is crucial for Democratic voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust, who’s honest, who is sincere, who has integrity.

EDWARDS: And I think it’s fair in that regard to look at what people have said. Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that’s corrupt in Washington, D.C.

She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she’ll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq.

To me, that’s not ending the war, that’s a continuation of the war.

She says she’ll stand up to George Bush on Iran. She just said it again. And, in fact, she voted to give George Bush the first step in moving militarily on Iran—and he’s taken it. Bush and Cheney have taken it. They have now declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

EDWARDS: I think we have to stand up to this president.

And then, finally, she said in our last debate that she was against any changes on Social Security—benefits, retirement aid, or raising the cap on the Social Security tax—but apparently, it’s been reported that she said privately something different than that.

And I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country’s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.

RUSSERT: You stand behind the word “doubletalk”?

EDWARDS: I do.


Later in the debate, without a hint of embarrassment, Governor Richardson actually stated "you know what I’m hearing here? I’m hearing this holier than thou attitude towards Senator Clinton that—it’s bothering me because it’s pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need. Do we trust her? Do we—did she take money from special interests?"

What we "don't need," Senator, is a candidate loathe to give clear answers to penetrating questions. Nor a candidate basing her run on experience while discouraging release of papers which would help the Democratic electorate evaluate that experience. Nor for that matter do we need a dark-horse candidate whose comment suggests that he is more interested in being nominated for Vice-President or Secretary of State than for President.

What we do need, Governor, are challengers who question the frontrunner. Perhaps if Senator Edwards had done so 3-4 years ago, he would have been nominated, would have won the election, and would have spared us the Presidency of another man who believes that a leader should not be questioned.

Reflections on the Debate (Philadelphia)- no. 2

At the Democratic Presidential debate on 10/30/07 in Philadelphia, Senator Clinton demonstrated yet again that she has more insight than courage. Here is the exchange between Tim Russert and the contenders on Social Security (comments following):



RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, “It’s a no.” I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said “no.”

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, “I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.” You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?

CLINTON: Well, Tim, I don’t. I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges which I agree are ones that we are going to have to address.

CLINTON: We would have a bipartisan commission. In the context of that, I think all of these would be considered. But, personally, I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors and middle-class families. That’s why I put fiscal responsibility first, because we have to change the Bush tax cuts, which I am committed to doing.

We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system, and begin once again to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus. You know, part of the idea in the ‘90s was not just so Bill would have a check mark next to his name in history, but so that we would have the resources to deal with a lot of these entitlement problems.

George Bush understood that. The Republicans understood that. They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security.

CLINTON: I am not going to be repeating Republican talking points. So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered, well, anything could be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission. But personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.

RUSSERT: But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?

CLINTON: Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it. I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that.

I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap. We’re playing on the Republican field. And I don’t intend to do that.

RUSSERT: You call it a Republican talking point. Georgetown University, February 9, 1998: “We are in a—heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits,” Bill Clinton, 1998.

RUSSERT: That’s recent history. Only two years to go in his term. Is that a Republican talking point?

CLINTON: No, but what he did was to move us toward a balanced budget and a surplus. And, if you go back and you look at the numbers, they really took off starting in ‘98, ‘99, 2000, 2001.

And that would have given a president who actually believed in Social Security—which George Bush does not—the resources and the options to make decisions, but not the kind of draconian decisions, and certainly not the move toward privatization, which is what the Republicans have been advocating for as long as I can remember.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you said in May, that, quote, “Everything is on the table when it comes to Social Security.” You now have an ad up in Iowa which says that any benefit cuts are off and raising the retirement age are off.

Why have you changed your mind?

OBAMA: Well, what I say is that that is not my plan.

OBAMA: Now, I just want to go back to what Senator Clinton said, because I think it’s important for us not to engage in business as usual on Social Security and talk straight.

Everybody on this stage is against privatization and we all fought against it—everybody. I absolutely agree that Social Security is not in crisis; it is a fundamentally sound system, but it does have a problem, long-term.

Even if we deal with the issue of fiscal responsibility, the trust fund is no longer being rated—that’s something that all of us are in favor of.

We’ve got 78 million baby boomers who are going to be retiring over the next couple of decades. That means more retirees, fewer workers to support those retirees.

It is common sense that we are going to have to do something about it. That is not a Republican talking point. And if we don’t deal with it now, it will get harder to deal with later.

So what I’ve said, and I know some others on this stage have said, is that among the options that are available, the best one is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting folks in the middle—middle-class folks—but making sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share—a little bit more.

OBAMA: Now, it is important, if we are going to lead this country, to be clear to the American people about what our intentions are. And this is part of the politics that we have been playing, which is to try to muddle through, give convoluted answers. Ultimately, we then don’t have a mandate and we can’t bring about change, in part because we’re afraid to give Republicans talking points.

I’m not fearful, just as Joe isn’t, to have a debate about this with Rudy Giuliani because we’ve got the facts on our side. But we’ve got to be clear about those facts and not pretend that those facts don’t exist.

RUSSERT: But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.

OBAMA: What I said is that she has not been truthful and clear about this point that I just made, which is we can talk about fiscal responsibility and all of us agree with that. All of us oppose privatization.

OBAMA: But even after we deal with those issues, we are still going to have an actuarial gap that has to be dealt with. It is not going to vanish and if we have a moral responsibility to the next generation to make sure that Social Security is there, the most successful program to lift seniors out of poverty that we’ve ever devised, then we need to start acting now and having a serious conversation about it.

CLINTON: Tim, I don’t see any difference here. You know, my view is we go towards fiscal responsibility, which is hard. It’s not going to be easy inheriting what we’re going to inherit from Bush and the Republicans.

And there are some long-term challenges. I have no disagreement with that.

But I think the best way to handle them is within the context of a bipartisan commission. That’s what worked in 1983 when Social Security was on the ropes. Our colleagues in the Senate had a hearing today talking about how they could move toward a bipartisan commission.

CLINTON: And, once there’s a bipartisan commission, then we can see what we need to do. But I don’t want these decisions to be made in a vacuum. I want it to be made in the face of moving back toward fiscal responsibility, because that will influence which choices are actually better.

And I certainly don’t want to impose a trillion-dollar tax increase on middle-class families, or any kind of additional burdens on our seniors.



Note that the New York Senator not only realizes that talk of Social Security being "in crisis is a Republican trap- we're playing on the Republican field" but also "the Republicans understood that (i.e., the need for resources to avert a crisis). They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security."

Unfortunately, she still advocates a "bipartisan commission" to deal with the problem. Not only is that a way to avoid leadership, but is not likely to promote a progressive solution. A commission, like a task force, never concludes that the problem it has been asked to investigate and propose solutions for really was not as grave a problem as to warrant creation of the commission. A conclusion that the system is "in crisis" requiring "bold," "creative," or "courageous" action, such as increasing the payroll tax, raising the age of eligibility, or decreasing benefits would be likely. And a President Clinton would have clean hands and a claim to bipartisanship as the elderly are victimized.

Reflections on the Debate (Philadelphia)- no. 1


I'm sure you've heard this before: speculation before the Democratic Presidential debate centered on whether front-runner Hillary Clinton would be forcefully challenged by the other candidates, especially Barack Obama. (A.B. Stoddard of thehill.com commented earlier in the day that the Illinois Senator "wants to protect the Obama brand.")

As all know by now, it happened, though Obama was still a little timid compared to Dodd and Edwards. Here is the transcript, courtesy of MSNBC.com, of the exchange on the issue of illegal immigration (comments following), raised by co-host Tim Russert.



Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.

Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?

CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability.

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license?

(UNKNOWN): Believe what?

RUSSERT: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver’s license.

DODD: This is a privilege. And, look, I’m as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we’re dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we’re going to extend this privilege here of a driver’s license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it.

We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here.

But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us.

But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.

CLINTON: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...

(UNKNOWN): Wait a minute...

CLINTON: And we have failed. We have failed.

DODD: No, no, no. You said—you said yes...

CLINTON: No.

DODD: ... you thought it made sense to do it.

CLINTON: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving...

DODD: That’s a legitimate issue. But driver’s license goes too far, in my view.

CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification?

If somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker...

DODD: There’s ways of dealing with that.

CLINTON: Well...

DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.

CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses, one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is another ordinary driver’s license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road, so...

DODD: That’s a bureaucratic nightmare.

CLINTON: ... it’s not the full privilege.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license?

You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?

CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays “gotcha.” It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.

He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.


Senator Clinton is wrong on several counts:

1)This was not a "gotcha-question" ("gotcha question" in the HRC Dictionary of the English Language, 1st edition: "question I'm going to have to answer.") Not only is illegal immigration an important issue, Mrs. Clinton had to have known, or at least suspected, that she would be asked a question about a hot-button issue occurring in her state.

2) She actually stated "I did not say that it should be done" after saying that it should be done- "what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

3) Just as the term "illegal alien" is emotionally charged and imprecise (are the aliens from Mars or Venus?) so is the term "undocumented worker" imprecise and misleading. There are two kinds of people, men and women; two races dominant in American life, white and black (not white and "colored" and not white and "Negro"); and there are two kinds of immigrants: legal and illegal.

4) The New York Senator is wrong on the issue. Giving illegal immigrants- from Mexico or Canada- a driver's license presents a security challenge, as Dodd hinted at. With Dodd noting (as I thought was settled principle, reflected in law) that possessing a driver's license is a "privilege, not a right" Clinton argued "but the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving..."
Yes, Senator Clinton, with or without a legal license, many illegal immigrants will drive. But that is no reason to give them a license anymore than it is, say, sensible to give individuals convicted of drunk driving a license because we know that many of them drive without a license.

News flash: Barack Obama is opposed to reducing Social Security benefits.

To be fair, in his new radio ad (see it here in Dave Johnson's excellent blog on HuffingtonPost)in Iowa, the Illinois Senator, according to the Associated Press, also wants to eliminate "the tax exemption for the wealthy." This at least, separates himself from the Repub candidates for President, who recognize that doing so would only help the middle class at the expense of the wealthy, which they are loath to do. Still, Obama's comment that "if we have failed to have a real, honest conversation about Social Security, it will not get fixed," suggests that Obama believes there is a problem with Social Security, a myth of the Washington chattering class and rationale for GOP privatization efforts.

Voters under the age of, approximately, 30 have grown up hearing from the media, most Repub politicians, and even some Democratic politicians that there is a "problem" with Social Security. Here is the "problem"- the trust fund being robbed for general revenues, so that the progressive income tax need not be raised while Repub politicians and some DLC-style Democrats brag about not raising taxes and excoriate their opponents for allegedly doing so. And another problem: there is little recognition among youth about the collective responsibility of one generation to another in America. Obama's ad? not helpful.

Imagine my shock to learn that Mitt Romney is an opportunist. In this posting on talkingpointsmemo.com, we learn from the Associated Press that the former Massachusetts governor has welcomed an endorsement from Bob Jones III, chancellor of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina.

There is only one problem- or at least you might think so. Bob Jones III believes the Mormon religion, of which Romney reportedly is a devout member, is an "erroneous faith" and "cult."

In his attempt to gain the Repub Presidential nomination by impressive opportunism, however, Romney has intense competition. Rudolph Giuliani is a former mayor of a city with millions of supporters of the New York Yankees, whose rivalry with the Boston Red Sox may be the most intense in the United State. Yet, he recently asserted during a campaign stop in Boston "I'm rooting for the Red Sox (in the World Series)" and at a later stop in Concord, New Hampshire "good luck to the Red Sox."

In the world of pandering, as in the world of demagoguery, there is only one king- and his name is Rudolph.

It is common among bloggers to criticize prominent members of the mainstream media, and I periodically have joined in that. so it's only fair for me to acknowledge instances in which two television journalists have done something admirable.

The recent Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College was hosted in part by Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News, who performed superbly, asking good questions and often following up on them with the candidates. And today, October 25, Wolf Blitzer, host of the Situation Room on CNN, made a laudable remark to Valerie Plame Wilson.

Mrs. Wilson, as you all know, was a covert CIA agent, whose husband, career diplomat Joseph Wilson, ran afoul of the Bush Administration for reporting that he had found no evidence during his trip in February, 2002 to Niger that Sadaam Hussein's Iraq had tried to purchase uranium "yellowcake" from the African nation. In his February, 2003 State of the Union message, President Bush infamously proclaimed "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Six months later in his New York Times op-ed piece, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," Wilson wrote "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Soon afterward, after speaking to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed Joseph Wilson's "wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Hence, Mr. Novak had "outed" Mrs. Wilson by revealing her status as a (covert) CIA agent. Karl Rove, Presidential Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, and the Vice-President's Chief of State, I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby also revealed to reporters Ms. Plame's employment status, though classified information.

And now we know positively what the right wing had been vigorously denying for four years- that Valerie Plame was in fact "covert." Note this from the action brought against the government by Plame and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, in the United States District Court, Southern District Court of New York State:


Further, in connection with Mr. Libby’s sentencing, the CIA confirmed that at the time of the leak, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. As acknowledged by the government in connection with the sentencing phase of the criminal prosecution of I. Lewis Libby, in January 2002, Ms. Wilson was a CIA operations officer, assigned to the Counter Proliferation Division (“CPD”) at CIA Headquarters. In that capacity, she served as the chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. Over the years, on numerous occasions Ms. Wilson traveled overseas, always under a cover identity, using an official or non-official cover, with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.


Valerie Plame was a covert CIA officer investigating the possible linkage between Saddam Hussein's government and "weapons of mass destruction," a major rationale for the war launched by President Bush. Her cover was blown by an Administration apparently unconcerned about the damage to the critical intelligence operation she was carrying out on behalf of that government and the American people. And so at the close of today's interview with Plame, Wolf Blitzer boldly uttered those words otherwise now so commonly, and appropriately, addressed to members of the Armed Services:

"Let me thank you on behalf of a lot of our viewers for your service to our country."

Quote of the Week

"I took a city that was known for pornography and licked it to a large extent."

-Rudolph Giuliani, as quoted by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown on October 24, 2007