Democrats Debate in Iowa
Filed under: 2008 elections, Feature — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on December 13, 2007 @ 9:26 pm CET
Today the Democrats debated each other in Iowa. I watched it live (through the Internet) but decided not to live-blog the event because this would result in yet another ridiculously long post. Instead, I thought I’d simply summarize what was said and declare winners afterwards.
First things first: Bill Richardson has to stop attacking China every time an opportunity to do so arises. Boycott China-made toys will probably result in a gigantic crisis. Not only that, it’s also a typical Richardson-exaggeration. Something else: Bill, you can’t have “human rights for Americans.” Health care insurance is either a human right, or a civil right in America.
Clinton performed quite well. With regards to social security she said that something has to be done, but that people shouldn’t panic about it. With regards to NAFTA Clinton said that it’s a good treaty/project, but that it has to be changed. She also said she wants to ‘protect’ American workers, trade in a fair way with the world, and that she will ‘force’ trade partners to improve conditions for workers. Frankly, that’s none of the US’ business. Workers’ conditions will improve in a country over time, automatically. How and when? When those countries become richer. That’s how it has happened in the West and that’s how it will happen in the rest of the world.
With regards to energy she said something very good; she turned it into something positive. Into an issue of patriotism. Start a new, gigantic project. Involve the people. Making them proud of working on alternative energy.
Biden showed that he knows what he’s talking about, on any given subject. A possible Vice President I’d say. And, in saner times, even a first-tier candidate. He also argued that trade agreements should, partially, consist out of ‘human rights’ clauses and other conditions that forces governments to treat their citizens well. He was backed up by Richardson who wants to have, I think, minimum wages in all countries the US deals with. I’m not sure how this makes sense.
He responded great to the question about education. To the point, clear. One of the main problems: teachers are underpaid. Another problem: classes are too large. Something has to be done about that, and he’s right. The only point is: do you do that by making the role of the federal government even bigger or do you do that by making schools compete with one another?
The Senator was asked about some gaffes he made (with regards to race). He explained that he has the support of minorities and that his record shows that he’s working hard on equality and that he has always fought against racism. He did admit, however, that he expresses himself a bit too bluntly sometimes. The other candidates supported him, Barack Obama used 20 seconds or so defend his colleague.
Obama: made his points and views clear and, when able to, made clear that - to him - policies shouldn’t just be changed, Washington should be reformed. When possible he also used quotes of Martin Luther King Jr., which is… quite smart. On the issue of global warming, energy, etc. I found Obama to be reasonably weak. His disadvantage was that he came right after Clinton who answered the question quite strongly and directly.
Another thought on Obama: perhaps I’m the only one who has this problem but I have difficulty concentrating on what he says. I often find myself not listening to what he says and, instead, surfing on the net. He doesn’t always talk very coherently in my opinion. People say he’s ‘eloquent’ and he is… in speeches, debates aren’t his strength however. Clinton is much better at debates.
It’s also interesting to see that Obama talks about art and music suddenly. Hmm who else does that? Ah, Huckabee. With regards to education he rightfully pointed out that parents have to become more active. It’s not just a problem of money.
When asked how his administration would be a break with the past while many of his advisers are former Clinton advisers Obama responded well: when Clinton said that she would like to hear his answer, he said that he’s looking forward to getting her advise as well when he’s president.
Ouch.
Edwards: in the Netherlands people with a strong accent are taught to get rid of it when they (want to become) are public figures. Perhaps a suggestion. It’s remarkable how often he changes the subject from, say, foreign policy into ‘corporate power.’ With regards to energy he picked up where Clinton left off. Americans need a president who wants them “to be patriotic about something else than war” he said. A good, strong line.
Dodd: one of the best expressed ideas during the debate came from Dodd. Human rights, he says, are fundamental to America’s security. It’s true. Happy peoples don’t hate the US. Oppressed people do. He was also possibly the only person on state who was bold enough to advocate carbon taxes for businesses. I don’t and wouldn’t support such a tax, but I get the impression that the other Democrats would like to implement such a tax as well but lack the political courage to advocate for it.
Of course it’s not that simple but it’s a good generalization (if such a thing exists).
One of the fascinating things about the Democratic debate was how tame it was. If the Republican debate was boring at times, the Democratic debate was, well, ‘borest.’ To call it tame would be an understatement. Having said that, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, at least not in my opinion. Less fireworks means more depth. Normally. And the Democrats used the opportunity; they didn’t attack each other, they tried to defend their own views.
Clinton had one, in my opinion, bad moment. She asked the moderator whether she wanted them to raise their right hand if they believe that global warming is a serious problem. “We want to go on the record,” she said. That may make Clinton popular with nurse Ratched, but I didn’t find so funny myself. Frankly I believe that asking presidential candidates to raise their hands is ludicrous. Something journalists and candidates should be ashamed of.
One other thing: yesterday I was pleasently surprised by how the Republican candidates talked about globalization. Today, however, was an entirely different affair. The Democrats treat globalization, generally, as if it’s some kind of evil. They tend to see it as a problem (American workers lose jobs!), not as an opportunity. I find that disappointing about all of them.
Winners:
Four out of six, I’d say. Dodd, Biden, Clinton and Obama all did well. Between Clinton and Obama I believe that Clinton’s answers about policies were better but that Obama possibly had some better one-liners. Again, I believe that Obama isn’t a good debater. When asked a question he seems to have great difficulty answering it coherently and clearly. Clinton’s much better at directly answering questions… which is quite ironic since many people accuse her of dodging questions. Of course, it has to be pointed out that Clinton wasn’t asked difficult questions this time around.
Losers:
Edwards and Richardson.
And nurse Ratched seems to be a Democratic voter herself. She seemed to be slightly more cheerful today than she was yesterday.
Of course that’s difficult to tell with such a person, but sometimes I think I even saw something that resembled a smile.
1 Lynx
December 13, 2007 @ 9:36 pm CETThe truth is I like Biden quite a bit, I think I’d vote for him over Obama if he were a first tier candidate. Obama I think isn’t so good at the debate format because of the time limit, he’s great when given the time to develop a storyline, but not so good with the "you have 30 seconds, go!" format. BTW, that pic you put up of him really does make him look like MLK.
2 Michael van der Galien
December 13, 2007 @ 9:46 pm CETLynx: I think that he has difficult responding. In other words, he’s strong at setting the agenda, holding a speech before a gigantic crowd, a carefully prepared and rehearsed speech, but that he’s weak at reacting (or responding).
That could actually become a problem if he becomes the Democratic nominee. For them, I hope he improves in that regard.
3 jillian
December 13, 2007 @ 9:53 pm CETLynx - I’m going to vote for Biden because he deserves to be in the top tier.
4 Chris
December 13, 2007 @ 10:06 pm CET"Boycott China-made toys will probably result in a gigantic crisis. "
Yes… far better to let children get sick and possibly die from them instead… Wouldn’t want to disrupt trade for that…
I see 3 choices
1) Boycott the goods
2) Hire more inspectors
3) Hold each toy store in America legally responsible for any hazardous toy they sell
"and that she will ‘force’ trade partners to improve conditions for workers. Frankly, that’s none of the US’ business."
But you think everything else is our business… you know, like running Middle East countries… giving tons of money to Israel for weapons…
As a responsible consumer (and our government is a big consumer in essence), you should be aware of who you support. Would you buy tennis shoes from a company that employs slave labor? And what about multinationals… how do they fit into this picture?
"[Obama] doesn’t always talk very coherently in my opinion. "
Yes… he certainly isn’t as prepared with canned responses. You get the impression that he is actually having to think about what he is going to say. I find it refreshing, but it doesn’t come across as particularly smooth.
"Edwards: in the Netherlands people with a strong accent are taught to get rid of it when they (want to become) are public figures."
In current U.S. politics, a Southern accent can be an advantage. It makes you seem more down-home and real, and can help in deeply rural areas. Either way, I think it’s a non-issue.
"I don’t and wouldn’t support [a business carbon] tax"
Why not? I thought you were all into the idea of harnessing the market for positive change.
"The Democrats treat globalization, generally, as if it’s some kind of evil."
Maintaining an air of caution in your rhetoric towards globalization is probably wise. People have lost their jobs because of it, so it’s a real problem, even if the benefits outweigh the positives. But you can’t just brush aside all those workers and say "tough luck."
5 Michael van der Galien
December 13, 2007 @ 10:17 pm CETThere’s nothing refreshing about a person who can’t speak coherently. It’s not about ‘canned responses’ it’s about being able to think quickly and to express your thoughts clearly without having to work on your response for 2 hours. He can’t.
And even more people have gotten a job because of globalization and being cautious about it isn’t wise at all. Globalization is a good thing.
You really are confused aren’t you? I’m for the free market. Not for your nanny government forcing people to pay even more taxes so they can spend even more money on useless programs than they already do.
I think you’re a non-issue. How’s that?
Get a sense of humor.
Slave labor? My God. We’re not talking about slave labor, we’re talking about the US wanting to force other governments and businesses to give the same rights to workers in their countries Americans workers enjoy.
Which aren’t rights but privileges.
Multinationals fit into this picture as follows: you.stop.persecuting.successful.companies.
O please. Can you overdo it a bit more. My God, the US is importing from China for decades. But now, suddenly, all kids die because of the toys! You’re still alive aren’t you?
Global warming, toys, globalizations… it must be difficult to live like you do: believing that there are 10,000 crises.
6 Chris
December 13, 2007 @ 10:34 pm CET"And even more people have gotten a job because of globalization and being cautious about it isn’t wise at all. Globalization is a good thing."
That may be true, but why ignore the reality that everyday citizens have to go through. Losing your job is a traumatic experience. Shouldn’t we find some way to help people out? Maybe promise educational vouchers or something…
"You really are confused aren’t you? I’m for the free market. Not for your nanny government forcing people to pay even more taxes so they can spend even more money on useless programs than they already do."
Carbon taxes are not about raising revenue, it’s about controlling negative externalities. If I dump sewage into the river, I will be fined for it, that’s why I don’t dump sewage into the river. However, if I pump crap into the air, no one says anything, even though it has a huge negative effect on the air quality and possibly the climate. By taxing that behavior you at the same time recognize that carbon emissions are a necessity, but that they also carry negative consequences.
"I think you’re a non-issue. How’s that? Get a sense of humor."
Sounds like you’re the one in need of an attitude adjustment. You okay?
"Which aren’t rights but privileges."
Again, human rights are decided by other humans. There is no directive from god or aliens that tells us we should have the freedom to do anything. A "privelege" can become a "right" whenever we say so as a society or as a species. Your distinction between rights and privileges is therefor irrelevant.
"Multinationals fit into this picture as follows: you.stop.persecuting.successful.companies."
Even ones that act in blatantly immoral ways? I guess greed trumps all. I forget, are you a religious man?
"My God, the US is importing from China for decades. But now, suddenly, all kids die because of the toys!"
We also have less inspectors vs. the number of goods being brought in from China. The situation is different.
"Global warming, toys, globalizations… it must be difficult to live like you do: believing that there are 10,000 crises."
What’s life like in Candy Land?
7 Michael van der Galien
December 13, 2007 @ 10:48 pm CETGood Lord, please let the government stay out of it. People are more capable than you think to change their own lives without you having to ‘help’ them.
No it’s not: rights are to be determined by reason, custom and humanity. Privileges are not. They’re just that: privileges.
History has shown that when the government becomes as big as you want it to be, vice will take over even more. What’s more, I thought you were against mixing politics and religion? Or does that only go when my religion instructs me to do something you don’t agree with?
Yeah it is different; you’re getting your panties up in a bunch now and determined to make people afraid of free markets.
That sounds right to me: one of the major problems in the US is, from my Dutch perspective, that the media determine beforehand who are electable and who are not. Then, the voters decide which one of the two (maybe three) ’safe choices’ win the nomination. Utterly ridiculous.
8 kreiz
December 13, 2007 @ 11:02 pm CETAnd, in saner times, even a first-tier candidate. Amen, brother.
9 Chris
December 13, 2007 @ 11:03 pm CET"Good Lord, please let the government stay out of it. People are more capable than you think to change their own lives without you having to ‘help’ them."
You should read some studies that show how much better off different countries have become once their governments invested more in education (Russia in the 1800s is a good example).
"No it’s not: rights are to be determined by reason, custom and humanity. Privileges are not. They’re just that: privileges."
You’re trying to have a semantic argument… except you’re not really providing us with any guidelines or examples.
"What’s more, I thought you were against mixing politics and religion? Or does that only go when my religion instructs me to do something you don’t agree with?"
I just thought your religiosity would give me insight into your morality. But again, you’re not really arguing for anything, you’re just sticking to an ideological talking point. Regulation = bad! What I’m looking for is a weighing of our options.
"you’re getting your panties up in a bunch now and determined to make people afraid of free markets."
Yeah, I’m deathly afraid of free markets. You always hear me complaining about memory chips from Taiwan, cars from Japan, food from Mexico, luggage from Europe, shoes from Indonesia… oh wait… I don’t do that. This is about a lack of safety controls.
10 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 11:06 pm CETHey Chris, here’s a thought- if you’re concerned about helping out people who’ve lost jobs, find some nonprofit centers in your area that support people seeking education, training, and employment.
What a concept, huh? We can help people without going through the government as a middleman.
And "invest more in education"? I think Dave Schuler had something recently posted about federal education spending going up by 40% in recent years- what have we gotten in return for that investment?
11 Michael van der Galien
December 13, 2007 @ 11:09 pm CETPss, Christine, did you know that conservatives tend to donate more to charity and to do more voluntary work? Pss. keep it quiet - it’s so much easier to think that big momma will fix everything!
Christine. When will you finally understand it: money is the root of all evil, except for when we talk about education and health care in which case it’s godlike.
12 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 11:18 pm CETActually Michael I think it goes like this:
Money in the hands of the private sector is the root of all evil (greed and all of that) while money in the hands of the government is a panacea for all ills.
I do have to apologize for the snark though, since in another thread I just got annoyed at another commenter for making strawmen of my arguments and I have to admit that I don’t really think you are to that extreme, Chris.
13 Chris
December 13, 2007 @ 11:25 pm CETSome problems are just too big for ordinary citizens. Otherwise, why have government at all?
14 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 11:27 pm CETUm, I think the Constitution does a pretty good job at outlining the functions that government is supposed to serve, Chris. So what, in your world anything that’s too hard for individuals to achieve on their own should be shifted to the government sector? Or if not, what’s the criteria?
15 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 11:29 pm CETMaybe I was wrong in comment #12- maybe you really are that extreme of a big government liberal.
16 Chris
December 13, 2007 @ 11:31 pm CETC Stanley,
I’ll assume your voting for Ron Paul then.
17 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 11:33 pm CETLOL- I was just reading J’s latest post and similarly thinking of the irony, since I do agree with some of Paul’s libertarian stances on economic issues.
But you are also doing what J did- assuming that if X is not true, than the opposite of X must be true.
18 Chris
December 13, 2007 @ 11:52 pm CETI just thought that Dr. Paul would approve of this comment: "I think the Constitution does a pretty good job at outlining the functions that government is supposed to serve"
19 C Stanley
December 13, 2007 @ 11:56 pm CETLOL, yes. Perhaps I should be the "Ron Paul Girl".
20 Chris
December 13, 2007 @ 11:58 pm CETIs that something like the St. Pauli Girl?
Anyways… I’m off for the night… have a goodnight everyone.
21 kritter
December 14, 2007 @ 6:27 am CETThe truth is I like Biden quite a bit, I think I’d vote for him over Obama if he were a first tier candidate.
I have to agree with Lynx here. Biden seems to have the expertise in foreign policy that Obama lacks, and its been frustrating to see his outstanding performances at these debates passed over by the media and voting public. I’m at least hopeful that he will end up as someone’s VP or Sec State. At least he’s always coming up with solutions- not sure if any of them will work, but he does understand the complexity of the problems- which Richardson does not.
22 Eric
December 27, 2007 @ 7:54 pm CETEric…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..