Debate tonight. I'll be liveblogging.
Watch this space. It will be elongated — starting at 8 Eastern Time — with quirky observations and peevish intuitions. I'm very interested to see how those two relate to each other after all these (nasty) weeks apart. Strong acting skills will be required.
Obama will, no doubt, take a stance above the fray. Be cool but — be careful! — you'd better not seem aloof — don't look down on that shorter person next to you! — or we will see that image the Hillarists want to project on you. Hillary has the devious power of nothing to lose. She'll be looking for every opportunity to unsettle him, to provoke an error, to rephrase something he's said and make it sound unsavorily San Franciscan.
8:00. Opening statements are thoroughly bland. Oh, good lord, they're already going to commercial. I'll bet they lose a lot of audience. Here in NYC, the debate show is playing in between "Spongebob" and "Family Guy."
8:08. They're asked to pick each other as their running mate. Awkward! Obama says it's "premature." Hillary follows suit.
8:13. The bitter small-town religion clingers quote is thrown at Obama, who says he can see how it offended some people. So can Hillary. Hillary keeps dropping the names of places in Pennsylvania.
8:18. Hillary is challenged over a statement she made that Obama can't win. After some harrumphing, she concedes that Obama can win. Obama then concedes that Hillary can win.
8:24. Obama is asked why didn't he disassociate himself from Jeremiah Wright sooner. He mainly relies on the assertion that he hadn't heard most of the bad statements. At some point he says "someone I've disowned" and has to correct it to "statements I've disowned." Given her chance, Hillary brings up Wright's connections to Farrakhan and Hamas. "These are questions," she says.
8:35. Hillary does a good job of owning up to her Bosnian sniper fire gaffe.
8:41. Obama is asked about his patriotism. First, the easy part: Why not wear a flag pin? That's a "manufactured issue." He reveres the flag, and he does wear the pin sometimes. Then the hard question: Why is he friendly with William Ayres (once a member of the Weather Underground)? This is another "game" in O's view. The man is an English professor who lives in his neighborhood, and Obama was 5 years old when Ayres participated in the Weather Underground. Given her chance, Hillary recites some of Ayres's bad behavior, including his relatively recent statement that he wishes he'd "done more." Obama comes back with the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned 2 members of the Weather Underground.
8:52. Do they really have a plan to bring troops home from Iraq? If the military commanders told you that pulling the troops out will destabilize Iraq, would you still go through with your plan? Hillary: Yes. But her plan is only to "begin" to withdraw troops within 60 days and to proceed with caution from there. The idea is for Iraqis to get the message that they need to take over. Obama follows suit. "The President sets the mission." He'll listen to the commanders on the ground "with respect to tactics," but he provides the "mission." Mission. Tactics. Mission. Tactics. Get it?
9:01. Israel. Iran. Taxes. It's devolved into the usual policy recitation. The candidates sound fine, but you can read the transcript.
9:22: Obama is talking about a drastic rise in Social Security taxes for people making more than $97,000. We have to do something, and raising the retirement age is unacceptable. Could someone explain why? We live much longer than in the days when Social Security began, and many fewer people were expected to live to collect payments. If we live longer, shouldn't we work to an older age?
9:24. It's the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. People are saying a prayer. It takes a fraction of a second for Obama to bow his head. Prayer: Bows head. Great reflexes! That's just an intro to a question about gun control. Hillary keeps talking about Mayor Nutter — love the name. Both Hillary and Obama do exactly what you'd expect them to do: Distinguish between the good guys, who deserve respect as they go their traditional ways, and the bad guys, who deserve regulation. We can be sensible. Balanced. Don't give guns to "the mentally deranged," Obama advises. That's all very nice but do you support the D.C. ban, the one that's before the Supreme Court? Hillary waffles about how she doesn't know the facts. She does a federalism riff: What might work in New York is certainly not going to work in Montana.
9:33. Obama is asked whether affirmative action should be changed so that affluent African Americans like his daughters are not given advantages and maybe poor whites are. He recommends looking at all the factors for each individual. Race is one factor. But look at the whole person. (That's exactly in line with the Supreme Court case law.) Hillary thinks we need "affirmative action generally," by which she seems to mean that we need programs that reach very young kids, kindergarten and so forth. She's suddenly speaking very fast and energetically. This is her area of special expertise. It's quite striking how different she sounds on this subject. She dutifully responds to questions about national security, but she comes alive talking about children. Ah, but now she's talking about gas prices and she's still hypercharged. Maybe she's looking at the clock and knows she needs to cram more into the little time that's left. By contrast, Obama's tone and speed remain utterly consistent.
9:39. Obama laughs "heh heh heh heh heh" when Hillary is asked about how she'd use former Presidents, specifically George W. Bush.
9:47. Make your pitch to the superdelegates. Hillary: I'm a fighter. I'm ready. Obama: I will lift you up. I'm new. I'm different.
9:51. Good night, everybody.
7:16 AM. I sum up the general reaction to the debate and express my opinion here.
Obama will, no doubt, take a stance above the fray. Be cool but — be careful! — you'd better not seem aloof — don't look down on that shorter person next to you! — or we will see that image the Hillarists want to project on you. Hillary has the devious power of nothing to lose. She'll be looking for every opportunity to unsettle him, to provoke an error, to rephrase something he's said and make it sound unsavorily San Franciscan.
8:00. Opening statements are thoroughly bland. Oh, good lord, they're already going to commercial. I'll bet they lose a lot of audience. Here in NYC, the debate show is playing in between "Spongebob" and "Family Guy."
8:08. They're asked to pick each other as their running mate. Awkward! Obama says it's "premature." Hillary follows suit.
8:13. The bitter small-town religion clingers quote is thrown at Obama, who says he can see how it offended some people. So can Hillary. Hillary keeps dropping the names of places in Pennsylvania.
8:18. Hillary is challenged over a statement she made that Obama can't win. After some harrumphing, she concedes that Obama can win. Obama then concedes that Hillary can win.
8:24. Obama is asked why didn't he disassociate himself from Jeremiah Wright sooner. He mainly relies on the assertion that he hadn't heard most of the bad statements. At some point he says "someone I've disowned" and has to correct it to "statements I've disowned." Given her chance, Hillary brings up Wright's connections to Farrakhan and Hamas. "These are questions," she says.
8:35. Hillary does a good job of owning up to her Bosnian sniper fire gaffe.
8:41. Obama is asked about his patriotism. First, the easy part: Why not wear a flag pin? That's a "manufactured issue." He reveres the flag, and he does wear the pin sometimes. Then the hard question: Why is he friendly with William Ayres (once a member of the Weather Underground)? This is another "game" in O's view. The man is an English professor who lives in his neighborhood, and Obama was 5 years old when Ayres participated in the Weather Underground. Given her chance, Hillary recites some of Ayres's bad behavior, including his relatively recent statement that he wishes he'd "done more." Obama comes back with the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned 2 members of the Weather Underground.
8:52. Do they really have a plan to bring troops home from Iraq? If the military commanders told you that pulling the troops out will destabilize Iraq, would you still go through with your plan? Hillary: Yes. But her plan is only to "begin" to withdraw troops within 60 days and to proceed with caution from there. The idea is for Iraqis to get the message that they need to take over. Obama follows suit. "The President sets the mission." He'll listen to the commanders on the ground "with respect to tactics," but he provides the "mission." Mission. Tactics. Mission. Tactics. Get it?
9:01. Israel. Iran. Taxes. It's devolved into the usual policy recitation. The candidates sound fine, but you can read the transcript.
9:22: Obama is talking about a drastic rise in Social Security taxes for people making more than $97,000. We have to do something, and raising the retirement age is unacceptable. Could someone explain why? We live much longer than in the days when Social Security began, and many fewer people were expected to live to collect payments. If we live longer, shouldn't we work to an older age?
9:24. It's the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. People are saying a prayer. It takes a fraction of a second for Obama to bow his head. Prayer: Bows head. Great reflexes! That's just an intro to a question about gun control. Hillary keeps talking about Mayor Nutter — love the name. Both Hillary and Obama do exactly what you'd expect them to do: Distinguish between the good guys, who deserve respect as they go their traditional ways, and the bad guys, who deserve regulation. We can be sensible. Balanced. Don't give guns to "the mentally deranged," Obama advises. That's all very nice but do you support the D.C. ban, the one that's before the Supreme Court? Hillary waffles about how she doesn't know the facts. She does a federalism riff: What might work in New York is certainly not going to work in Montana.
9:33. Obama is asked whether affirmative action should be changed so that affluent African Americans like his daughters are not given advantages and maybe poor whites are. He recommends looking at all the factors for each individual. Race is one factor. But look at the whole person. (That's exactly in line with the Supreme Court case law.) Hillary thinks we need "affirmative action generally," by which she seems to mean that we need programs that reach very young kids, kindergarten and so forth. She's suddenly speaking very fast and energetically. This is her area of special expertise. It's quite striking how different she sounds on this subject. She dutifully responds to questions about national security, but she comes alive talking about children. Ah, but now she's talking about gas prices and she's still hypercharged. Maybe she's looking at the clock and knows she needs to cram more into the little time that's left. By contrast, Obama's tone and speed remain utterly consistent.
9:39. Obama laughs "heh heh heh heh heh" when Hillary is asked about how she'd use former Presidents, specifically George W. Bush.
9:47. Make your pitch to the superdelegates. Hillary: I'm a fighter. I'm ready. Obama: I will lift you up. I'm new. I'm different.
9:51. Good night, everybody.
7:16 AM. I sum up the general reaction to the debate and express my opinion here.
Labels: children, debate, guns, Hillary, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jeremiah Wright, Obama, Pennsylvania, religion, simulblogging, Social Security, taxes
146 Comments:
I hope they're standing at podiums this time instead of sitting at a table like at the other recent debates. Sitting next to each other makes it harder for them to really go after each other. I'm not really in the mood for another friendly debate.
Making him sound Chicagoan might be unsavory enough for a politician, given that city's, ahem, rich political history.
Chris, what odds do you give on the race at this point?
Or, she may take the role of gracefully deferential, if she has seen the poll numbers and decided that the blowout wins she needs won't be forthcoming, and it is time to mend fences and salvage her reputation for the future...
Enigmaticore, what polls do you have in mind? those I've seen (this is representative) show her handing Obama his ass.
Simon: 85% to 15%, maybe. I think she's likely to win all the major remaining states other than NC, and I think there will be some legitimate-sounding argument for her being the rightful nominee when they go to the superdelegates. But I have a feeling they'll go for him in the end for fear of a backlash.
I assume others have noted the irony of the fact that the Clintons have been in those same San Francisco living rooms on many occasions, sucking up to the same silk-stocking liberals and passing the hat.
Chris, you got your wish about podiums! ;)
Go for Barak's kidneys, Hillary. Give him the gift that keeps giving. For the rest of his life every time he pisses...blood. A gift worthy of the MAGNIFICENT BITCH you are!
Ugh, not being broadcast in HD or widescreen even though its on an HD channel. I feel like I'm watching an old debate on YouTube. They are at podiums, though. I think this could be good.
There'll be a backlash either way. A lot of people I know who would vote for Hillary will vote for McCain before they vote for Obama.
And vice versa.
Or so they say. Will they really?
Too bad the silk-stocking San Franciscans have to watch it tape delayed on the left coast. What's the point of having a debate if you can't watch it live? I read today that ABC is only allowing other media outlets 30 seconds worth of clip coverage until tomorrow morning, so that non-east coast viewers can't see "too much" before it airs in their time zones. Ridiculous! Thank god for Ann.
Chelsea Clinton always looks like she's about to cry.
Obama just referred to himself in the third person. Not a good habit.
Lectern.
Christopher Althouse Cohen said...
"Simon: 85% to 15%, maybe. I think she's likely to win all the major remaining states other than NC, and I think there will be some legitimate-sounding argument for her being the rightful nominee when they go to the superdelegates. But I have a feeling they'll go for him in the end for fear of a backlash."
Is it your sense that the door - or at least, the cat flap - swings the other way too? That is, suppose (as seems likely) Clinton wins the balance of the primaries, going into the convention with momentum, but not a popular or delegate count majority. She and her supporters can credibly claim that the superdelegates should swing to her in those circumstances. The superdelegates might, as you say, reasonably fear a vote-draining backlash from Obama and his supporters, but is there a possibility of a backlash going the other way if, in the afore-mentioned scenario, the superdelegates give it to Obama? Obama supporters are pretty passionate about their candidate, but so too are many Clinton supporters. I ask because a liberal commenter at SF argued this morning that "[i]f the Hillary voters feel shunted aside, if the superdelegates award the nom to Obama ... then they'll stay home in November...." That seemed exactly opposite to the received wisdom, where Clinton gets the nomination and those invested in Obama stay home, from my outsider's perspective.
"Chelsea Clinton always looks like she's about to cry. "
I went to see her speak the other week, and she sounds that way too!
He's talking about the "bitter" quote and his head is now tilted over in that way. The angle of his head is his lie detector test.
Obama repeated his usual silliness about hot-button issues - the claim that we can't deal with the important issues because we're bamboozled by hot-button issues. It has the elitist ring of a tacit claim that there are some subjects on which it's legitimate to base one's vote, and some which it isn't. But more to the point, he doesn't want to put those issues to one side, or to find some sort of compromise on those issues, he wants the people who disagree with him to drop their issues and concerns. Nothing in his record even hints otherwise. It's legitimate to be a values voter, he seems to say, if you're voting on the "value" of a woman's right to choose, but not so if you're voting on the "value" of being pro-life.
(For example)
If you are out on the west coast-it's on tape delay.
You can watch it streaming live on the internet with a reaction from undecided PA voters-the up down graph-at the local ABC affiliate in Philadelphia.
Here is the link-
WPVI Philadelphia
Aha, he says he can't be condescending to people of faith, because he's a person of faith. Even if that had the mileage that he thinks it does for that point, I think Althouse had his number on that point ("my sense of it is that he is not a religious man. The only significant discussion of religion comes when he joins Jeremiah Wright's church, and that is all about his worldly, political concerns with his community organizing in Chicago").
Thanks Madawaskan.
"Undecided" PA voters!?
Good grief I'm sure they're a bright bunch.
If you haven't chosen between Hillary and Obama at this point you shouldn't be allowed to choose.
The dial shooting almost striaght up when Hillary is addressing the sermon of Wright just five days later after 9/11.
An attack on New York City a city that she was/is representing.
Obama on Jeremiah Wright: "I believe that he loves this country." Someone make a youtube clip juxtaposing that and the "God Damn America" speech.
Christopher Althouse Cohen said...
"Obama on Jeremiah Wright: 'I believe that he loves this country.' Someone make a youtube clip juxtaposing that and the 'God Damn America' speech."
We in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy already have an ad cued up flipping between Wright's comments and the Obama clip "I cannot disown that man" (or whatever it was) - all we have to do is slot that line in at the end.
Well so far Randy thinks Hillary was a little pitchy at the bridge and that Obama should take on Stevie Wonders act by being blind to his pastor’s racism. Paula thinks they are superstars and are ready to record right now. And Simon thinks they sound like a cabaret act at a gay Portuguese disco.
Sounds about right.
Zachary-
No problem.
Ya -I think it's undecideds-actually I'm not sure how they are describing them...
The "dialers" were really hard on Hillary during the Bosnia response-went more negative than when Obama responded about Wright.
jesus. Flag pins? That's a major issue now? I've had this thing on for 20 minutes and all I've heard is nonsense about who they know and what those people said.
Is this the state of American politics?
[T]he debate show is playing in between "Spongebob" and "Family Guy."
Huh?
No freakin’ way!!!
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
That means I gotta go!
(But Althouse, you keep watching. That's what Jesus would do.)
P.S. For the religious among us, yes, it’s true . . . I blasphemed last night and today God visited me with a plague . . . which greatly resembles the symptoms of allergy to Maple pollen.)
P.P.S. If this comment makes no sense at all . . . it’s not me . . . it’s the Benadryl talking.
P.P.P.S. whaaatr you Pope .; ]]did;firdv dorje OBAAM . . .a IlY pwfyou s p leeesh pa; aaaaaaa HI L L REE aa amla 3 3l 3l ! 1! 1!11! /……dais?….. . . . 80%/20% EEEEVIIIIL? Waaalthaus AA ? 90 0 ; = *&= == ++ + !1!
P.P.P.P.S. Ga a aaaaa aaaaa-shplisch-aaaaa a aaaaaa-g a a!!!
Simon, I was not referring to any particular public polls, but what her campaign polls might be showing.
But I have seen polls that say she's going to win big, and polls saying that she'll win by less than 10. Less than 10 won't net her much, if anything, as far as net delegates are concerned. She's got to have the blowout, and only a precious few polls lately show her getting one, and we don't know what her own (undoubtedly more accurate) polls show.
He hit another of my pet peeves! They just keep coming... He suggested that these are extraordinary times. That's no more true today than it was when Robert Kennedy claimed that those were not ordinary times and that was not an ordinary election. I think history bears out that no election is ever ordinary while it lies before us, and times are never ordinary until they are far behind us. It's in a similar vein to the bone I picked with Judge Posner's position on civil liberties in times of terror - that whereas he is correct to claim that the era of Islamic terrorism "poses a challenge that is unique in American history, one might [also] say the same about the Cold War. Or the Civil War. Or the revolutionary war. Every national crisis poses unique challenges." (Emphasis in original) (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted).
To paraphrase the bad guy from The Incredibles (sorry, Ann), when everything is extraordinary, nothing is. The challenges before us today are no more daunting or significant than the challenges that were before us yesterday. Although it's a natural tendancy to think that we happen to live in exciting, extraordinary times - think of all those Christians who believe that the rapture will happen in their lifetimes - but in truth, the challenges that Clinton or McCain in 2009 will have to grapple with are not more significant than those Reagan faced in 1981, to take only one example.
"Obama comes back with the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned 2 members of the Weather Underground."
Yeah but they paid him for that, fair and square, cash money. What's the problem?
How'd the line go on BHO's defense of his G**D****'d Pastor?
Did Clinton just admit the Bosnia thing was a lie rather than a mistake? She goes on and on about the issue and says she's sorry, it wasn't accurate, but never says it was an accident. At the end she says, "I'm very sorry that I said it and I have said that, you know, it just didn't jive with what I had written about and knew to be the truth." Oookay.
Well, let's say that's an admission of guilt. I'll still take that over continuing the same lie with your head tilted off to the side even as you're being called out.
Simon: I know some people will be angry about the results either way, but that always happens in a close election. It's a completely different story if the perception is that the election was stolen. Clinton's chances largely ride on the possibility that either winner will look like they stole it. Let's say she'd have the popular vote if Florida were counted, and a bigger popular lead if Michigan were counted with some or all uncommitteds going to Obama. That's when Obama could still say he led pledged delegates and popular vote and has to be the winner, but there would be significant basis for calling it a stolen election. And that scenario is maybe the only one where she could end up being a good choice for VP. If Florida and Michigan voters plan a backlash against Obama because their vote was taken from them, she could be the only person capable of repairing the damage.
I also agree that Obama is likely not a religious person. Here's what he says in The Audacity of Hope about it: "It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized."
Some epiphany. That's like saying "I realized Christians aren't necessarily morons, so I figured I might as well go ahead and join a Church."
"Obama comes back with the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned 2 members of the Weather Underground."
Great. We have both Democrats pointing out the cozy relationship between Democrat politicians and leftist domestic terrorists.
Are they trying to convince me that I must vote? And vote for McCain?
Christopher, that was the closest I have heard a politician come to flat out saying, about a campaign exaggeration, that they lied.
It made me want to forgive her.
Althouse Cohen is on fire and should post here more often.
Christopher:
You noticed that head leaning of Obama's too. I believe it indicates he is pissed too- that and when he tilts his head back and stares down at his intervewier. He did that on the View when Hasselback asked him a tough question.
Obama says he's concerned that we don't have any troops to militarily intervene somewhere else in the world, because they're all tied up in Iraq. Unasked follow-up question by Steph and Charlie: where and under what circumstances would Obama send U.S. troops abroad to deal with a military crisis? Would he have intervened militarily in Sudan, for example? Would he have ordered Grenada? If he wouldn't deploy them elsewhere, it's a moot point whether we have the capacity to do so.
I think they are gonna be a lot better at the next debate when Neil Diamond is the mentor.
EnigmatiCore, I disagree - in my view, all she needs is momentum. If she starts beating Obama convincingly and consistently hereon out, that's enough, as I see it. A blow-out would be nice, and would be vindication for her, but I don't think it's necessary. Her path to the nomination requires her only to remain credible enough to give the superdelegates cover to do what they already want to do.
Enough of this. They are both confirming my deep desire to vote for neither of them, and probably for no one.
Maybe one of the last general election debates will dispel that feeling and get me to the booth. But I doubt it.
Great question about the capital gains tax - kudos, Charlie. Now if he'd expand it to taxation generally we'd be talking.
Hillary: "I have a lot of baggage." Thanks for the reminder.
Is this just a debate on all the gaffes, mistakes, and negative press? I don't think they've asked a single policy question so far. It's sort of the gutter debate. Next they'll ask Obama why he sucks so much at bowling and Clinton if she'd like another shot of Crown Royal.
Anybody keeping an Obama "distraction" count?
Oh, and great answer from Obama on capital gains! Even though raising the rate lowers revenue and vice-versa, he wants to to raise capital gains tax to punish people who make too much money! Picture perfect!
Christopher Althouse Cohen said...
"Next they'll ask ... Clinton if she'd like another shot of Crown Royal."
After that answer about Bosnia, I think she could use one.
"If she starts beating Obama convincingly"
She needs to win Pennsylvania by 20 points to not have the calls for her to withdraw increase. A ten point win will probably net her only a 7-9 delegate gain, which isn't nearly enough.
Christopher Althouse Cohen said...
"If Florida and Michigan voters plan a backlash against Obama because their vote was taken from them, she could be the only person capable of repairing the damage."
That's really a wildcard here, isn't it - how that will play out, particularly in Florida in view of the rhetoric of eight years ago.
I haven't seen Simon this excited since Nino put out his swimsuit calendar.
I didn't change the channel when I said I would. Is it just me, or is just about every question hitting these two from the right? Respond to GOP points, how will you defend yourself about this, and now will you concede that tax cuts increase government revenue?
Is ABC the new Fox?
Well in the interest of cruel neutrality-
Is it fair that George--ex-Clinon- staffer is moderating?
And going non-neutral-
Why is she sounding like she's from Fargo all of a sudden?
Maybe she has a cold.
Trooper York said...
"I haven't seen Simon this excited since Nino put out his swimsuit calendar."
Miss April was my favorite.
EnigmatiCore, I don't think the calls for her to withdraw would cease if she won Pennsylvania unanimously. As I see it, the calls for Sen. Clinton to withdraw have nothing to do with her capacity to win, it seems to me - they come from partisans of Sen. Obama, who want Senator Obama's opponent to quit while she's behind.
OK, I am back from Madison and have all kinds of stories.
Can we set up a special posting for my trip to Madison, entitled, "Titus does Madison".
There are too many stories to be shared that it needs its own blog post.
I hung out and danced with college chicks, did a really hot guy, stayed at the Inn on the Park and called my mommy at 3:00 to tell her I wasn't coming home, ate out at fabulous restaurants and did much more.
Let's get that special "Titus does Madison" post up.
Thanks doll.
Of course they would never stop completely.
What would have been a more artful (hey, I learned from Obama) way of saying it would have been to say that if she does not win Pennsylvania by 20, then the calls for her to drop out will dramatically, not just slightly, increase.
And I would expect her to heed them prior to North Carolina.
Wait -
It's only when she talks about investing people's taxes-and hits the vowels in economy that she sounds all Fargo..
Subliminal message-
Cow Futures..
However, I will say my comment (the third in this thread) has been proven wrong. She did not come to cut and run. She's cutting away at him with impressive skill, and he seems very rattled and less than impressive.
This is really a disaster of a performance by Obama.
I was so busy arguing with Simon about my pre-debate take on things that I wasn't really reflecting on what I had been hearing.
He's awful tonight.
Do I dare switch to American Idol? I'm worried about my Brooke. But I'm frankly more worried the candidate of my choice. I'll stick with this.
Agh, Hillary's plugging her website again! She can't stop saying her URL.
How are they going to cut taxes for the middle class and pay for all these programs? O & C both make the same promise.
EnigmatiCore said...
"He's awful tonight."
With all due respect, some of us don't see how that distinguishes tonight's performance from any other performance he's given. (That recusal's really gone by the wayside tonight, hasn't it. Sorry. I'm only human. And this stuff is important.)
How are they going to cut taxes for the middle class and pay for all these programs? O & C both make the same promise.
And McCain promises to make Bush's tax cuts -- the ones that McCain opposed -- permanent, and McCain also plans on spending spending spending. If only None of the Above were allowed.
I think Brooke is history -- at least going by performance. Carly still might take the bullet and save her -- or Syesha might -- but Li'l Nanny was pretty bleak last night.
"If the military commanders told you that pulling the troops out will destabilize Iraq, would you still go through with your plan?"
"The idea is for Iraqis to get the message that they need to take over."
Damn straight. We did them the favor of removing their tyrant for them, now it's up to them. Give anarchy a chance. It's better than tyranny. My quibble with the sentiment above is the unexamined assumption that somebody or some party or some faction needs to take over. WHICH Iraqis need to "take over" WHOM? Balkanize! We the People could use a little more of it ourselves.
Simon said..."[i]f the Hillary voters feel shunted aside, if the superdelegates award the nom to Obama ... then they'll stay home in November...." That seemed exactly opposite to the received wisdom, where Clinton gets the nomination and those invested in Obama stay home, from my outsider's perspective.
i see it in reverse. If aything, Obama's young first time koolaid drinkers either vote for Barry o stay home. After all, all of those waves of first time Dem voters have never shown up before.
Hill's voters on the other hand are soccer moms and Reagan democrats that have voted security issues before. And frankly, thee is the wilder/bradley factor there as well. I thik they break stronger for McCain than you predict.
"How are they going to cut taxes for the middle class and pay for all these programs?"
They already (or at least Obama did) admitted that cutting taxes has raised revenues in the past.
The problems are that Obama then said that he thinks it would be good to raise taxes (on some) anyway because it would be fair, and Hillary is hurt by Bill's campaigning on a middle class tax cut that became tax increases after he "never worked harder" trying to make the cuts happen but "just couldn't."
The bad news is-- both of these candidates will raise our taxes. The slightly better news is McCain either won't or won't as much. The worse news is that both of these candidates, and McCain, will break the bank with new domestic spending. McCain might do so with less pork, but will do so with a heavier hand towards regulation and restrictions on speech.
A very depressing election with varying degrees of bad.
enigmaticore: They said cutting capital gains taxes raised revenue, not taxes in general. Maybe it's a complicated relationship, and different types of cuts work in different situations. If cutting taxes solved everything, Bush's economy would be doing a little better. But I know almost nothing about the economy, so you can't go by me.
Awful answer by Hillary on guns. She favors 'reasonable' restrictions on guns (good so far). Then asked if DC's total ban on guns is reasonable, and she says a court might say no but does not say that she says no.
Leaving it open to the suggestion that she thinks even a total ban can be reasonable, in certain circumstances, such as in the city where Senators conduct their business.
How are they going to cut taxes for the middle class and pay for all these programs? O & C both make the same promise.
They'll tax the people who Aren't Paying Their Fair Share.
MadisonMan said...
"McCain promises to make Bush's tax cuts -- the ones that McCain opposed -- permanent...."
That's the soundbite that's always trotted out, and it's true, but it's critically incomplete. McCain opposed the tax cuts because they weren't accompanied by spending cuts. That is, he wasn't against cutting taxes, he thought it was important to cut spending too. He was and remains correct, and his campaign today harmonizes with that position.
I think the economy is beyond the direct control of our tax policy. I don't think it can be ruined or helped tremendously (in either direction) by raising or cutting taxes slightly (as will certainly be the case regardless of who wins-- I can't foresee any changes as dramatic as the major cuts by Kennedy or Reagan or the dramatic increases we have seen at other times).
Spending, on the other hand, can really hurt us. New programs start big and just get bigger. I would rather the candidates talk about making Social Security solvent than talk about creating new entitlements.
the drill sgt: If Obama's supporters are more liberal than Clinton's (which seems likely), I would think more of the Clinton supporters would be willing to vote Republican in the general, rather than cave and vote for a Dem they don't like.
Good. Lord. Does anyone agree with the inane things they're saying? I feel like I'm watching Atlas Strugged on television.
Also, would it kill them to answer the questions? Just answer them! They are so boring, and they talk around everything.
They should have Biden as their nominee. At least he says what he thinks and watching him isn't like watching a piece of balsa wood wave slightly in a gentle wind.
Why? Because it's ridiculous to expect people to work until they're 70. We get 18 relatively good years at the start and pay out ghastly sums of money to keep this f'ed-up government running - the least they can do is let us enjoy the last 20 years of our lives without having to worry about where our next paycheck is coming from.
They at least owe us that.
Anthony, you think everyone deserves 20 years of sitting on their ass before dying?
God forbid. I'd go out of my mind with boredom. I hope I am working right to the end.
Social security is so broken, abused, bankrupt and corrupted. It should be scrapped and we should start over. Hillary mentioned "the social security trust fund" and I almost choked- I thought that was a mirage only politicians could see right?
Throw out a multitude of alternatives and select the best replacement policies. Start with lettting anyone under 45 or so "opt out" entirely. It's too late for most of us who are over 45. We don't have the time to start from scratch.
Hello I am back. Can I get some love please?
EnigmatiCore said...
"I think the economy is beyond the direct control of our tax policy."
Yes and no. I think that both tax and monetary policy can very directly and very quickly foul up the economy when they're wrong, and a drastic shift in either has significant potential for havoc whether it ultimately comes to be a good or detrimental change.
"I don't think it can be ruined or helped tremendously (in either direction) by raising or cutting taxes slightly (as will certainly be the case regardless of who wins-- I can't foresee any changes as dramatic as the major cuts by Kennedy or Reagan or the dramatic increases we have seen at other times)."
I had thought that both Clinton and Obama opposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent? That "would impose -- overnight -- the single largest tax increase since the Second World War."
"Social security is so broken, abused, bankrupt and corrupted. It should be scrapped and we should start over."
And I should have studied harder, dedicated myself to exercise and eaten more sensibly during my college and early adult years.
Neither is going to happen, although it would be nice, perhaps.
raising the retirement age is unacceptable? Could someone explain why? We live much longer than in the days when Social Security began, and many fewer people were expected to live to collect payments. If we live longer, shouldn't we work to an older age?
1. The retirement ages were already raised 20 years ago.
2. The FICA rate was raised from 4% to 12% 20 years ago to cover the baby boom retirement bulge
3. I'm not convinced life expectancy is going up. Both my parents and my sister died well shy of retirement age. Smoke up, ladies!
4. Jobs for the experience-blessed are not exactly plentiful. Corporations are cutting old farts loose at age 55. Ann should enjoy being tenured. Many of the rest of us will be Wal-Mart greeters, or working the fry baskets at McBurger from 55 till retirement.
Freeman (and whoever)--please, wait for it--here's the e-mail I sent at 7:19:34 (Central) to friend/ex-colleague/former co-blogger stuck in a PA newsroom tonight:
Jeez. They're losing my interest already. I can see I'm likely going to be disappointed in Gibson (whom I like and admire), unfortunately, and that it's likely that Obama and Clinton are going to lack fire and be (perhaps too) mindful of superdelegates etc. (at least for a good debate).
Oh well.
And, a few e-mails later, at 7:50:17 (Central):
Ohmigosh. You won't believe the thought that just sprung to me.
I miss Joe Biden.
Thank the Lord I'm not wearing a tie, and that my son is still up and expecting an after-dinner sweet and a kiss good-night.
I will say it got a bit better thereafter. Of course, that depends on the definition of both "bit" and "better."
***
While I'm here, I think someone here--Madawaskan (did I get the persona, and the spelling thereof, right, by memeory?)?--mentioned wondered about having George S. being one of the questioners/moderator.
I had that thought, as well.
"I had thought that both Clinton and Obama opposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent? That "would impose -- overnight -- the single largest tax increase since the Second World War."
So you are buying into the Democrat spin that the Bush tax cuts were so overwhelmingly monumentally huge? That surprises me.
They didn't increase my take home pay that much. Reversing them would, therefore, not increase it all that much. I'd rather keep the money, mind you, than give it up to fund a new program that will only get more expensive and make me pay more in the future. But if you try to say that tax cuts that 1) didn't benefit me all that much and 2) didn't turn our economy into the finest humming machine ever assembled-- built for speed and built to last will 3) cripple me and 4) turn our economy into dust if repealed, then I would say that you are spinning me, unsuccessfully.
Of course we should raise the SS Cap.
Why not? Oh, I hope poor Bill Gates can afford it.
Crazy. Why should someone making $1 million/year pay less SS taxes (in percentage terms) than someone making $30,000?
I know, its tough being a millionaire.
This post has been removed by the author.
Social Security and Medicare are the two bloated pigs threatening this nation's financial health and no one, NO ONE except GW Bush has put forth plan to make real CHANGE.
...and GW got kicked in teeth for his attempt to do something different.
Mr. Change himself is offering nothing but more taxation and shoveling $ the same old tired programs.
Frankly, as much as he may annoy me, Bush has been a radical president on many levels.
Tonight is a return to the status quo and safety of the 60's and the 70's.
Good Bye Kristy Lee Cook! Wow, she wasn't even in my bottom 3 -- but she was 4th.
The debate seems very much same old same old to me. Thanks to the live-bloggers for watching it so I don't have to.
LOL, Reader. Who would have thought that Biden would be getting multiple points of Internet love tonight?
(I don't dislike Joe B., by the way. Having followed his career, quite literally, since 1972, the thread is part of the tapestry. That cuts more than one way, is all, and the person with whom I was corresponding understands exactly why.)
EnigmatiCore said...
"So you are buying into the Democrat spin that the Bush tax cuts were so overwhelmingly monumentally huge? That surprises me."
I'll stipulate it if it'll grease the wheels of conversation. :) I tend to agree with McCain that the problem with Bush's economic policy (and with the GOP generally 2002-2006) isn't that tax policy was wrong, but that spending policy was horribly, totally wrong. If it was left to me, evil conservative that I am, I'd eliminate 100% of federal entitlement spending, period, and scale back non-defense "discretionary" spending considerably. Yet both increased under Bush.
I too, like Biden, although I do think he has a *smidge* of some old fashioned thinking (read- prejudices) and a real problem with running his mouth too much.
Well, if they were overwhelmingly huge, then I would say that they did not benefit me enough and did not benefit the economy long enough or substantially enough. Perhaps that is due to all of the increased spending, but I don't see any of the three being worth my vote on spending. All three will increase it substantially, with McCain making token efforts at cutting back pork.
that [Bush] spending policy was horribly, totally wrong.
Agree 100%. I could have created chaos in Iraq for a lot less than half a trillion dollars. BTW: that's where your Social Security Trust Fund money went. Suckers!
Obama and Clinton are doing a polite version of Amiri Baraka's play, DUTCHMAN.
Ann:
People are living longer but when politicans use current life expectancies, they tend to try to mislead us.
For instance, they will say people 60 years old today can expect to live to be 80. But among people 60 today and therfore born in 1948, how many have already died? maybe 20-25%? And those unfortunate souls paid in their money for years and years and got nothing.
You would not let an insurance company change the terms of its policies after you had been paying premiums for 30 years, right? In many ways,social security is an insurance policy - hence Hilary's referring to it as a "trust". We should not accept changes just because they have squandered our premiums or "contributions" as they like to call it. Force them to stop the bleeding first then negotiate via the ballot box.
Althouse: I meant to much earlier note your "lectern" comment.
Excellent!
And those unfortunate souls paid in their money for years and years and got nothing.
How unfair! Life should be much fairer than that. But they did get something: the satisfaction of knowing they left the Earth with the Social Security Trust Fund a little bit more solvent!
Pity the poor Republicans who voted in George Bush thinking he's be a fiscal conservative! It's time to pay the piper now for six years of truly reckless Republican spending.