The Democratic debate in Philadelphia

A running account:

Lots of folks are looking for some body-language clues as the ABC-sponsored debate begins. No such luck.

As the cameras click on, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are already standing at their respective podiums.

*

In a break from most of the previous debates, both candidates get to make an opening statement. And both strike a high-minded tone -- Clinton especially so. She notes that although neither she nor Obama, as a woman and a black man, were fully accounted for in the Constitution written in Philadelphia, site of the debate, their presence on the stage demonstrates the promise of America.

Obama references his now-infamous "bitter" comment. He says that as he has campaigned in Pennsylvania, he has been struck by the "core decency and generosity" of the state's residents but that he also has taken note of their "frustrations" (not bitterness) over the state of the nation.

*

After an initial question on whether whichever candidate emerges as the winner in their battle will commit to picking the other as a running mate -- and after the predictable dodge by both -- ABC's Charles Gibson cuts to the chase and asks Obama about his comment at a private fundraiser in San Francisco that small-time Americans, faced with economic frustrations, "cling" to guns and religion.

Obama repeats his refrain of the last several days that he didn't express himself artfully but that he stands by what he insists was his overarching theme -- that people are frustrated by the feeling that Washington has passed them by.

Of his original remark, he says, "It's not the first time I've made a statement that got mangled up. It won't be the last."

He then stands by, looking balefully at Clinton, as she notes (with her immediate audience of Pennsylvania voters in mind) that ...

she's the granddaughter of a Scranton mill worker. And though she refrains from the sharp-edged attacks she launched against Obama over the weekend, she says she does not believe that her grandfather or father or other average Americans "cling to religion when Washington is not listening to them."

She makes the same point about hunting and guns.

Clearly, she still views Obama's comment as a political gift that keeps on giving.

*

The other major controversy that has ensnared Obama since he and Clinton last debated, on Feb. 26, the inflammatory comments by his ex-pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., comes up next.

Initially, it has a played-out quality to it. Obama, however, possibly errs in keeping the topic on the table by responding to Clinton after she reiterates her point -- made weeks ago -- that you can't choose your family, but you can choose your pastor, and she would have made a point of ending her membership in Wright's church.

As the discussion wears on, the debate's other questioner, George Stephanopoulos, asks Obama whether he considers Wright as patriotic as himself. Obama notes that Wright served as a Marine. Still, it's probably a place he didn't want to go to.

*

The gaffe that has plagued Clinton the most since the last debate -- her now-discredited tale that she came under fire during a trip, while first lady, to Bosnia -- is the next topic.

Clinton responds with a touch of anger in her voice that may not serve her well. And while conceding that she misspoke, she makes a passing reference to an excuse she used that also caused her grief -- that she misrepresented what happened to her in Bosnia because she was sleep-deprived.

That overlooks the fact that she erroneously talked about being under sniper fire a few times, and not always at late-night events.

*

Gibson and Stephanopoulos were probably damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

They had to bring up the "bitter" flap. They had to broach Bosnia. Maybe they didn't have to rehash Wright, but they did. Anyway, the result is that the debate is more than half over, and the war in Iraq, the home mortgage crisis, health insurance issues, etc., etc., etc., have all gone wanting.

Obama took a crack at making this point but, initially, to no avail. More than likely, these and other matters will soon start to come under discussion.

*

Sure enough, finally, Iraq is asked about.

Clinton stresses that she will begin a troop withdrawal within 60 days of taking office -- while also saying that it will be done in a "responsible" way.

*

Obama is asked if he would stand by his pledge to have troops out of Iraq within 16 months of becoming president, regardless of what U.S. generals advised. He asserts that yes, that is his call, "because the commander in chief sets the mission." And, he adds, the U.S. involvement in Iraq is a "bad mission."

He does throw in a caveat that he will "always" listen to the military about "tactics" -- meaning, presumably, that he would follow their lead in terms of implementing a safe withdrawal.

*

The debate turns to Iran, and Clinton -- like Obama -- clearly relishes that it has turned to more substantive concerns. With more animation than either candidate has exhibited up to this point, she says she believes an opportunity exists, "with skillful diplomacy," to reach out to other nations in the Middle East to forge some sort of agreement on how to deal with Iran.

She also resurrects a dispute from last summer that arose when Obama argued that the next president should be willing to negotiate directly with the heads of rogue nations without the usual rounds of sustained meetings among underlings.

Back then, Clinton (and many other Democratic candidates still in the race at the time) lambasted Obama over that comment. And tonight she stresses that she is in no way prepared to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, she notes, earlier in the day referred to the 9/11 attacks as a "suspect event."

*

Almost by accident, a lively exchange occurs over Social Security.

Obama defends the willingness he has expressed -- unlike Clinton -- to at least recognize that higher payroll taxes on higher-income earners would need to be considered as a way to ensure that the system will be able to handle the wave of baby-boomer retirees just starting to break.

"We're going to have to capture some revenue to stabilize Social Security," he says.

Clinton repeats her call for establishing a commission to come up with suggestions -- a convenient way to steer clear, during the campaign season, of embracing anything controversial on the issue.

Obama makes that point, noting that the commission that grappled with how to replenish Social Security's coffers during the early part of the Reagan administration paved the way for higher payroll taxes and an increase in the retirement age.

*

Both candidates try to thread a needle on gun rights, a subject Gibson brings up after noting that it's the one-year anniversary of the massacre at Virginia Tech. The discussion mainly demonstrates how, over the years, a once-fervent commitment by most mainstream Democrats to focus on stemming handgun availability has faded.

Clinton, without going into detail, commits herself to trying to "bridge this divide" between die-hard advocates of the Constitution's "right to bear arms" phrase and those who want to ensure that guns don't end up in "the wrong hands."

Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, says that as "a general principle" he supports an individual's right to own a gun. But that doesn't mean, he quickly adds, that the state can't "impose restraints" on that right.

Neither can be pinned down to take a yea-or-nay position on the high-profile case pending before the Supreme Court: the challenge to the District of Columbia law that bars virtually all of the city's residents from keeping in their homes handguns not registered before 1976.

*

No new themes or messages emerge as Clinton and Obama, in the debate's wrap-up, are offered a chance to make their case to the Democratic superdelegates who, it appears, will have to put one of them over the top after the primaries play out on June 3.

We imagine that in their private conversations with these party honchos, the two -- and their surrogates -- make much more compelling, and gritty, arguments. In this showcase, they reprise the roles they staked out when getting in the race in January 2007.

Clinton offers herself as the experienced, tested leader who would "tackle the problems that have been waiting for a champion" in the White House.

Obama offers himself as an agent of change (though avoiding that particular phrase). To truly make progress on healthcare (a subject not discussed), schools (a subject never asked about during these encounters) and other pressing concerns requires a "new political coalition," he asserts. And the one who could bring about that breakthrough, of course, would be him.

-- Don Frederick

                                                                 Photo Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak 

Comments

[Miles Long]

The Clintons had Vince Foster murdered. Why wont the mainstream media cover this?

[Russ]

"... it's been awhile"

Hopefully it takes even longer, perhaps even never, for the next debate.

What a joke. Worst debate ever.

[Tina]

Here’s a good summary of some reasons to consider supporting Barack Obama. Share it with friends in Pennsylvania. http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html

[Diana Z]

John McCain is going to eat either one of them up for lunch.
Obama did not answer adequately the "bitter" comment...he completely missed the point. people in the heartland who attend houses of worship or believe in their right to the second ammendment believe that NOT because they're frustrated with their governement..they have believed in these things for hundreds of years of American history through good times and bad times of government. Obama continues to fail to understand the majority of Americans, and Hillary points this out. Obama has consolidated his alienation of average Joe Americans. The response of typical liberals is stop picking on Obama..he's just saying the obvious.. these San Francisco types are in complete oblivion along with Obama as to what average heartland Americans are all about. This is why Kerry lost, and whu Obama also will get creamed in the general election..especially if you add the Rev Wright all issues..Obama has no hope unless he runs for president of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Miami.
On the other hand, Hillary looks earnest but less than presidential on that podium compared to Obama..

looks like 4 more years of a Republican administration..
alas..

[joey]

in regards to Clinton's statement that she would leave the rev Wright's church if she attended:

Aside from not understanding the point of the sermon, (that america has indeed done some horrible things and may now see the consequences) She clearly does not understand that churches are a community of people. It's a place to love and learn and grow. No one is perfect, including leadership. If she would leave, she does no one favors. She would simply be turning her back on people in condemning judgment instead of trying to lovingly correct and address the issue. She sounds more like casting the first stone, than seeking understanding.

How will this play out in her presidency? If she would not show more tolerance, should would be a divider rather than a uniter.

[Joe]

So, Hillary doesn't want to tax the rich? Not surprising, she gets most of her donations from them. Over half of Obama's donations are $20 or less from far more people.

[HiloBob]

Boy that Bosnian sniper was a miserable shot. I'm sure more than a few people got over their sleep deprivation listening to that story over and over again.

It doesn't matter anyway. This thing will probably go to the convention where the Democrats should conclude that neither is electable and draft Al Gore. At least he got a majority of the votes in 2000 and has won the Nobel Prize in the meantime to boot.

If that happens Rebushican John McCain won't stand a chance.

[jennifer potenciano]

obama since his san francisco gaffe has been trying hard to explain it away by repeating his constant, if boring, refrain.

he says that it was due to 'wrong syntax,' for one. but i just wonder how in God's name can a columbia & harvard dean's lister grad could commit such a glaring, unpardonable faux pas that's merely based on wrong grammar; george w. bush, perhaps, yes, with his notorious 'georgeisms'; but obama?

obama also ascribes it to his 'inartful' & 'mangled' way of putting it, & other samesuch houdini-like techniques.

i don't buy it. if one revisits obama's "BITTER" statements, there was no syntax error there, nothing of the sort that, say, a freshman student at the university of pennsylvania could probably make. it was not inartful either, the way that artsy-farsy ersatz dadaism could be. & it certainly wasn't mangled, like a chopped meat would look like.

on the contrarty, the message was very clear, & the way obama put it was also definitively 'artful.' in fine, it was a deliberate attempt to put down small townsfolk with such execrable air of superiority that made these little american people look like the aborigines of yore. this is the impression one gets from foreigners who've gotten wind of obama's elitist disparaging of the pennsylvanian folks.

obama should be man enough to take the resulting flak unleashed by his condescending remarks--& not try to shift the onus of blame to his political opponents, especially to hillary, who would never commit such a stupid judgmental error. & obama could not segue his "BITTER" mistake into an exposition on america's major crises today (bad governance, recession, poor health care, iraq occupation, etc.), without looking like an electric eel trying hard to wiggle out of a fisherman's net.****

& so to the pennsylvanian folks, & to the voters in indiana, oregon, montana & of other states with primaries still to be held, let this obama's character flaw, this insufferable obama conceit be your guiding light when you troop to the polling precincts, on april 22 for the pennsylvanians, may 6 for north carolina folks, & other dates for voters in other primaries.

teach obama a lesson in humility that he'll never forget.

confucius once said that to fall into a hole once is pardonable; but to fall into the same hole twice is simply stupidity.

don't let yourselves fall prey again & again to obama's unpardonable conceit & air of superiority. confucius just might turn in his grave! remember, he said yesterday that his spountings of "mangled" statements will be a regular fare in his campaign sortie. be properly wartned, then*****

[Gorefan]

Is this debate being shown live on the west coast?

(No, we're not important enough. It's on now on tape.)

[Barbara]

Oh my god, what does any of this have to do with th economy, torture or the war criminals in the White House. America doesn't deserve a democracy if this line of questioning is the best these "journalists" can do. The bitter comment warranted no more than a passing remark by a news agency, yet it has become "Bittergate?" How absurd.
We deserve the fascist nation we are becoming. Like Brave New World, we'll be enslaved by our own need for infotainment
By the way, your "analysis" of the debate is sophmoric.

[Renee]

I wish ABC would stick to Dancing with the Stars....How is it possible that a former Clinton aid is able to be a moderator for a "supposedly" unbiased debate...

All of Clintons responses seem to be rehearsed and I think that she had a hand in writing the questions,

Shame on you ABC, Shame on you!!!!!!!

[Roadkill Refugee]

ABC's debate was horrible. It focused on trivial issues and followed right wing talking points, with Hillary's encouragement, in an effort to put Obama on the defensive and paint a scary caricature of Obama. http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/abcs-horrible-obama-clinton-debate/

[chris]

this debate was an embarrassment to journalism.

[Anee]

Hillary won! Obama looks weak and like a snob.
He danced around Wright and Ayers and even got caught in a lie... I would disown him... I mean what he says, what a bunglerer. Obama will cost us the white house if he's the nominee.

[Rose Sloan]

I agree that this Debate focused on trivia and appeared designed to put Obama on the defensive! However, I am glad that He took the high road and refused to bash Clinton when Bosnia came up.

George and Charlie were very noticeably biased towards Clinton. Her answers were so well rehearsed, either she wrote the questions or was privy to them before hand.

ABC should be ashamed of letting a former Clinton aide serve as a Moderator?? George, did not want the tag of a "traitor" or "Judas." so of course he dare not press Clinton too much.

George and Charlie are poor excuses for unbiased news reporters. The American public is not that stupid that we cannot see through your charades. If this is the best ABC can do, they do not need to bother hosting any further debates.

Obama should never again subject himself to such bias and lynching!! On the other hand, in spite of Charlie"s deplorable interruptions and attempts to throw Obama off course, he showed great diplomacy by focusing in on what is important to American voters, health care, education, tax reform, etc.

I am glad that American people are above and beyond the Media pundits such as George and Charlie and in a position to move ahead to the defining moment in the history of these United States and elect a person who has put the will of the people above his own personal drive for power. The Democratic Party should be proud that someone like Obama has come along at such a time as this.
He has set records in fundraising, he has motivated and encouraged our youth to get involved, because of him more Democrats are registered and turning out than any other time in history.

I am grateful for the many of us who recognize and have seized the opportunity to put America back on course from the bottom up. The movement is too far now to turn around. Thanks be to God!

[Tutti Fruitti]

Obama continues to have strong support levels among Democrats who have college and postgraduate educations, while Clinton finds her greatest support among those with high school educations or less.

Clinton has essentially double the support of Obama among white Democrats with only a high-school level of education, while Obama has just about double her support level among white Democrats with postgraduate educations.

Telling indeed.

Translation: Open minded, intellectual, non elitists are most likely to vote Obama.

And then....there's the other candidate.

Obama will have to really work to get the rest of the populace better educated after he is President.

[Mara]

This was not a debate. This was a public lynching.
What makes it more deplorable, if that is possible is that the network that carried Edward R Murrow has become a Disney-sponsored Fox News.

[chuck]

This wasn't a debate. It was a question session on trivia. Real issues that were mentioned came up by accident, not from questions by the two moderator baffoons. I found Gibson particularly vile, but Shorty was nearly as bad.

ABC should have its license revoked, and its sponsors boycotted.

[Matt Parra]

The statement that Obama made concerning Pennsylvanians is %100 true and it is not condescending in the least. I am a follower of Jesus and find the small town hick culture that is passed as Christianity and affront to both the Holy Scriptures and common sense. Ignorance abounds concerning what the Bible says in these podunk villas and isn't it good to hear someone admit that what drives most so called american christians is a cultural adherence to Sunday brunch at Denny's. Pathetic

[Mahashi]

I have stopped watching ABC a long time ago when Charles Gibson sat on the chair of Peter Jenning, bless his soul. Tonight, I have seen that ABC has sunk much below Fox News. I have never seen such moronic moderators! ABC should fire those two Clinton mercenaries or surrender its broadcasting license.
What a disgrace for the ABC of Peter Jenning, and other well-liked and well-respected journalists.

[Paul F. Villarreal AKA]

Without exception, that was the best debate of the primary season. Tough questions for both candidates and no fawning.

Read more of my opinion here:

http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=386

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus, you have done a great service to your nation's electorate.

Thank you.

:)

[NormInPA]

Obama looked less than presidential. Clinton looked like she would be better able to suffer the slings and arrows of the general campaign than BO. It's quite amusing to see Obamites twist and shudder when their candidate is beginning to be exposed as untried, untested and sophomoric. BO's attempt to dismiss his association with Weather Undergrounder Ayers looked like a preview of how he will stutter and grasp for straws when he encounters unpleasant realities he isn't ready to face. (BTW I didn't know Obama was eight years old, forty years ago. How do you get your own age wrong? Not a good thing to point out your own inexperience as an excuse when you're claiming to be ready to hold our highest elected office.) Not good for him.

If BO and his followers aren't noticing how their candidate is wilting when the bright lights are on you can bet his opponent and their supporters will turn up the heat should he be the nominee for the Dems.

All in all it appears Obama is not ready to be the horse (donkey?) the Dems want to ride in this election, his inexperience was evident last night. He needs to pay his dues some more in Congress (or the Illinois governor's mansion perhaps?) until he gets some more seasoning, maturity and real political world experience. His ambiguously vague calls for "hope" and "change," along with cheesy explanations for his insensitive gaffes, and quickness in playing the race card, are getting old and stale. When the people want hard and real answers at difficult times it doesn't seem Obama will be able to deliver. Quite frankly Obama looks not up to the challenge in spite of what his blind followers might want you to believe.

[Jim B]

What a sham that was. Obama was relentlessly attacked and has survived. Did you notice how prepared clinton was on the question about Ayers? This was the one that Hannety gave to georgie. They obviously were in collusion. But Barack will now win in PA.

[beth]

I am a 60,white, female, American and living abroad. Hillary represents everything that makes me cringe about us US women of a certain "class" : meaning , the total absence of it, equipped with a big ego, a loud fat mouth, huge ambition and ready to walk over dead bodies if needed to get what she wants. Totally appalling..Sure, she is smart by common standards, but she makes the mistakes to let everyone know. Which in itself is not the definition of intelligence. I cant believe there are still people out there who support her. Didn't we see and hear and now also feel (NAFTA, the scandals etc) enough of the Clintons? PS: you dont get rich like them if you hang out with the poor....what does she know about them? Who is elitist here?...and above everything, who is the liar? Both Clintons are liars, it runs in their veins!