Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
INTO THE WEEDS, OUT OF IRAQ.
First, a point of personal privilege. Who is this Howard Meyerson from Pasadena and why is he asking pro-Mitt Romney questions? When Jeanne Cummings of Politico read his question during the debate, I was compelled to yell to my assembled colleagues in the press room, already tittering, "That's not me!" Jeesh.
That disposed of, the debate broke down into two major parts: Into The Weeds on Healthcare, and How Obfuscating Can Hillary Get on Iraq, Anyway? Hillary was plainly better during the first half (she excels at the oral exam format), and Obama was clearly better in the second.
I have little to say about the first half, other than that around the point where Hillary was explaining what could be done with electronic medical records, I suspect millions of American eyes glazed over. Drowsing Americans may have awakened when Obama referred to the cost of foot amputations, a topic I don't think has ever come up in a presidential debate before. Or not.
But the during the Iraqi discussion, the fact that the candidates had far more time than they had in the earlier, multi-candidate debates began to work to Hillary's disadvantage. The more she argued that she had interpreted the October 2002 vote to authorize the war as a vote to authorize inspections, the more deeply ridiculous she became. At the time, the common understanding of the vote was that it authorized war. That is why 126 House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, opposed it. That is why there were major demonstrations in the streets across the country. That is why, here at The American Prospect, Bob Kuttner, Paul Starr and I co-authored an editorial then -- in October, as the vote approached -- warning against going to war and urging Democrats to oppose the resolution. If Hillary Clinton really thought that the vote was about sending inspectors into Iraq, even though, as she said during the debate, that she "did enormous investigation and due diligence," she was having a delusional moment. And I don't think she was.
As the discussion of Iraq continued, Clinton adopted a We're-Just-All-Antiwar-Folks-Here strategy. Once Obama got to the Senate, she said, the two had the same policy. She tried at times to characterize her withdrawal position as essentially indistinguishable from his. But Obama was at his sharpest during this part of the debate, insisting that setting a real deadline for withdrawal would concentrate the mind of the various Iraqi factions ("It can't be muddy; it can't be fuzzy," he said in perfect Ol' Man River cadence) and using his new rather gentle zinger line, that it's important not just to be ready but to be right from day one.
Precisely because of the terrifyingly high stakes of this debate, both candidates strove for a level of amity -- and got there. Did Obama need to be more aggressive? I don't think he could have, not when the two were sitting next to each other with millions of Americans watching just five days before they go to vote. The debate format doesn't permit Obama to soar as he does during his speeches, and policy details are Hillary's natural habitat. But if Obama wanted to convey the impression that he'd be a sober national leader of sound judgment, and able as the nominee to take on the Republicans -- and those were his goals going in -- then he succeeded.
Did he make enough progress to win? We'll know soon enough.
--Harold Meyerson
COMMENTS (10)
Obama won debate tonight with Iraq war issue. Don't know Hillary's true view on the authorizing Bush's war, but as a woman planning to run for president there was no way she could vote against it and appear weak on defence / nat. security. Of course she can't say that, so her best option would have been to acknowledge long ago that it was a bad vote, based on believeing the information provided by C. Powell and others in Bush administration.
Posted by: laurie | February 1, 2008 12:04 AM
I flat out reject the proposition that Hillary, as a woman, could not vote "no." Had she voted "no," she'd have already sewn up the Dem nomination, because Barack would not have bothered to run.
My other problem with Hillary's story is that, if you believe her claim that she did not realize she was voting for war in October 2002, and that she, in her own mind, opposed it by the time it was launched in March 2003, then why on earth did she keep her supposed "opposition" to herself?
Posted by: RaymondA | February 1, 2008 2:09 AM
I was not overly impressed with Obama's back seat driving on Iraq.
He has the luxury of being prowar when his voice didn't count. Did the guy march for peace like MLK? Did he host peace sit ins or do anything other than make floor speeches from the safety of the majority of in one the bluest of blue states?
And yet somehow this is a mark of courage? It's great to be able to get it right via hindsight when you didn't have to make the choice yourself.
Hillary was in the minority while Bush/Cheney were at the height of their popularity. She pushed for inspections getting the best package she could looking to the 2002 elections.
When it mattered in 2006 Obama unsurprisingly found himself more concerned about the feelings of his Senate colleagues rather than standing up for Habeus on the MCA vote while looking at the upcoming election.
Is there any doubt that had Obama been in the Senate in 2002 he also would have been looking toward agreeing with his colleagues?
Posted by: patience | February 1, 2008 5:14 AM
"'It can't be muddy; it can't be fuzzy,' he said in perfect Ol' Man River cadence"
Racist!
Posted by: kyle | February 1, 2008 8:28 AM
I don't know why HRC tried to misconstrue the nature of the resolution. The only possible excuse for Democrats is the line that "the Bush Admin intelligence mislead us," which, in the face of 9/11, is a psychologically plausible overreaction.
As a nation we should come to grips with some of the surrealism of that period. It's too easy to just push it off on Bush and the Republican Party in hindsight, although they were certainly perpetrators. Can't HRC concede that she was influenced by them?
I can be her "bipartisan" moment.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 1, 2008 9:08 AM
Kyle, with all due respect, how is a reference to the great song "Ol' Man River," from the classic American musical _Showboat_, racist? It's part of the Great American Songbook, the musical canon that truly shaped our country's musical identity as independent from that of common practice period European idioms. Where does race figure in? From the fact that the song was performed by an African-American baritone in the show?
Frankly, I would much rather have a candidate using a musical reference in this context than McCain's "Bomb, Bomb Iran!"
Posted by: The Caped Composer | February 1, 2008 10:30 AM
laurie, if that's really true, I think the only solution would be to not have female Senators anymore. That sounds bizarre and perverse, and it is, but if it's really the case that a woman never has any choice but to authorize any request for military force that comes down the pike, that's not just a quirky gender-roles thing, that's an incapacity of office.
But of course, all this is moot, because of course female politicians can oppose wars and still be seen as competent, successful political leaders. And the way I know that is that "126 House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, opposed" the war in Iraq (see the post above!) and -- well, frankly, it's looking more likely by the day that come January 2009, Pelosi's gonna have a way bigger seat at the political table than ol' Hill.
Posted by: Daniel Munz | February 1, 2008 10:51 AM
They both looked good in this head-to-head debate. Civility reigned.
Hillary was on her game. Obama did well to force her to try to defend her Iraq war authorization, but failed to confront her about her failure to read the NIE report.
Obama had a great point in noting that the renowned businessman, Romney, had not obtained much return on his campaign investment. Hillary had a nifty line that a Clinton had cleaned up after a Bush presidency and that a Clinton would now do the same.
Both won. Hillary showed her excellent skills in outlining policy positions. Obama did OK and certainly did benefit a lot just from the additional exposure this debate.gave him.
homer www.altara.blogspot.com
Posted by: altara | February 1, 2008 11:25 AM
Thank you for post..
Posted by: sesli chat | September 12, 2009 7:17 PM
but to better understand and interesting topics and information about the necessary details thanks.
Posted by: neon tabela | October 2, 2009 11:36 AM