-
sponsorship
Neither candidate exactly answers the last question, “What moment tested you?”
Obama takes the opportunity to recite his entire biography.
Hillary, however, pivots in a way that evokes, of all things, her Diner Sob. Only this time, she sets herself up: “People often ask me, ‘How do you do it? How do you keep going?’ ” That’s the exact same question asked by Marianne Pernold Young at the Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, N.H., on the eve of the primary. Clinton then goes into a colorful anecdote about a medical center filled with people injured in Iraq. She doesn’t exactly tear up, but it’s a deliberately emotional moment. (We see Chelsea looking teary afterward.)
At the very end, she borrows a line that John Edwards used toward the end of his campaign. "We're going to be fine," she said, referring to herself and Obama. (Edwards always said it about himself and Elizabeth.) "I just hope we can say the same thing about the American people."
On CNN, David Gergen just called this her best television moment since New Hampshire. I know he’s supposed to be CW incarnate, but please, please don't let this be the narrative coming out of this debate. The moment was strong and no doubt genuinely emotional. Howard Wolfson just sent out an e-mail calling it "the moment she retook the reins of this race." But my interpretation was the opposite. She seemed oddly resigned. As some have already speculated, maybe she wants to go out classy. Hers was a very high-road tone. No doubt she's still in this race, but she could well have one eye on the general, in which any harsh words she utters now could be used to undermine Obama.
-
sponsorship
Obama wins the award for best regional pander. While discussing progress made by the surge, he points out that “the First Cavalry out of Fort Hood played an enormous role” in reducing violence. That must be worth five well-chosen Spanish phrases!
-
sponsorship
Both candidates stampede the moderators after the commercial break by forcing a continued discussion of health care.
Obama cites the Massachusetts plan as an example of mandates gone bad. “They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured, since they’ve concluded they can’t afford it,” he says. “Now they’re worse off than they were.” Is Deval Patrick listening?
Clinton points out that Obama's plan has a mandate that forces parents to insure their children at risk of penalty, which he acknowledges. It gets at the crux of their disagreement: Why create a mandate for children but not for adults?
She also saves her strongest point for the end: "We would not have Social Security if everyone did not have to participate."
-
sponsorship
John King: Are you saying your opponent is all hat and no cattle?
Hillary goes for it! After a polite intro, she all but name drops Kirk Watson, who couldn’t name a single Obamaccomplishment.
Obama's response is one you couldn't have seen him giving 10 debates ago. He's come a long way. He starts by rattling off a list of things he has done: “The strongest ethics reform since Watergate,” health care, vets, criminal justice system. He continues: “Senator Clinton of late has said, 'Let’s get real.' The implication is that people involved in my campaign are somehow delusional.” Clinton is grinning so wide it looks painful.
Then comes Obama’s money line, roughly paraphrased: “The reason this campaign has done so well is people understand it’s not just a matter of putting forward policy positions. If we can’t inspire the American people to get involved in their government, to go beyond racial, political, and regional divisions, we will continue to see gridlock in Washington.” Campbell Brown tries to interrupt the applause, fails, and tries again.
When the moderator follows up with a question about lifting Deval Patrick’s lines, Obama dismisses the attack as “silly season in politics.”
Hillary fires back: “It’s not change you can believe in. It’s change you can Xerox.”
-
sponsorship
Hillary nails the border fence question. Yes, I voted for a border fence in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. But no, I don’t agree with how the Bush administration is going about it. Her proposal recommends erecting a fence “where appropriate”—i.e., where border communities are OK with it—while deploying technology and more personnel in other places.
Obama seconds Hillary but adds that we have to pass the Dream Act, which would give high-school students a path to citizenship if they go to college.
So much agreement! What happened to this being the contrast debate? Obama might as well turn to Hillary and start giving her a backrub. Hopefully they’re saving the questions about race and patriotism for the second half.
Also: Gotta love Jorge Ramos starting to ask a question en Espanol. I was hoping he'd keep going. Or that Obama would bust out a few palabras after Hillary admitted to not knowing a foreign language.
-
sponsorship
Obama looks like a Roman senator. Hillary looks like a guest star in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Update 8:35 p.m.: A friend corrects me. More like Chronicles of Riddick.
-
sponsorship
WAS OBAMA JUST PEEKING AT HILLARY’S NOTES?
The clock reads 8:29—look it up later.
-
sponsorship
The main difference between Clinton and Obama on the subject of policy regarding Cuba is that Clinton would make Cuba take the first step toward compromise, whereas Obama would be willing to have the United States do so.
“I would not meet with [Raúl Castro] until there was evidence that change was happening,” Clinton says. Without that evidence, she says, she couldn’t be assured that the diplomatic overtures would go anywhere.
Obama reiterates his previous statements that he “would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation,” such as the “opening up of human rights, release of political prisoners,” and greater freedom of the press. But he is willing to make concessions without preconditions. That means loosening restrictions on remittances and travel.
It’s hard to know which of these approaches will appeal more to Texas Latinos. Clinton’s hard line will no doubt appeal to the anti-Castro camp, but Obama’s willingness to compromise on remittances affects families from other countries as well.
-
sponsorship
I like how people stop applauding the second CNN’s John King enters. They start again when they realize it sounds rude.
Applause is high when Hillary enters. They reach another decibel when Obama comes into view. The two candidates stand around for a few minutes taking photos with “local officials.” Couldn’t they have done this before the clock started ticking?
-
sponsorship
Hard to believe, but it’s been three weeks since we huddled around the TV to watch Barack, Hillary, and Wolf chitchat on a garishly blue and red stage. This is the 19th debate, so if you’re having trouble motivating yourself to watch, it’s understandable. (Especially considering Lost starts smack-dab in the middle of it for the second debate in a row. Trailhead has confirmed that Obama is not a member of the Oceanic 6. But I digress …) But just think, you’ve come this far. You might as well finish ‘em off.
- Early voting has begun—Underreported story line alert! Texas has already started to vote, and turnout is huge—10 times huger than 2004 in some parts. Considering people are already voting and polls suggests it’s anybody’s state, this debate has more significance than most. At other forums, the voters almost always had at least a few days to think about their impressions before they cast their votes. Now, Texans can run out to the polls first thing in the morning to cast their ballot. (Early voting ends Feb. 29.) The stakes aren’t just high, they’re pressing.
- Obama’s the frontrunner—now what? The knock against Obama at these debates has always been that he stays above the fray and is unwilling to mix it up. Now that he’s the man in charge, isn’t that what he’s supposed to do? If Hillary gets nasty and Obama responds in kind, then he’s an ungracious leader. But if he’s too cocky and doesn’t engage, the pundits will say he couldn’t stop the Hillary uprising when he had the chance. Ah, politics.
- Do issues even matter anymore? After this many debates, there doesn’t seem to be much more ground to cover, issues-wise. And the candidates themselves have largely abandoned issues to talk about who would be the best leader of the country, who would be ready on Day 1, and who would be stronger against John McCain. Tonight, expect issues to be window-dressing on the more contentious—and dare we say substantive—differences between the two Democrats.
- Latino love—Considering her other demographic stalwarts are fleeing, Clinton needs Hispanic voters now more than ever. Obama, meanwhile, has powered his way up the polls without broad-based Latino support. If Hillary overcourts Latinos, Obama could fill the void for white voters. If Obama, meanwhile, doesn’t pander to Latinos, any inroads he’s made in the community could evaporate. Look for more of the same, here.
- Will Hillary be a meanie? Now that she’s finally at a debate with Obama, will she remind him (and the millions watching) that he didn’t want to debate her elsewhere? If so, can Obama respond without flubbing his retort? Clinton may also use this as her launching pad for further attacks against Obama’s record. Thus far, we don’t know what her tone will be over the next two weeks—tonight we’ll find out.
We'll be live, from the Internet, blogging the debate as it happens. Festivities start at 8 p.m. ET.
-
sponsorship
If you, like us, have had your face buried the McCain lobbyist story for the past 24 hours, there’s a chance you missed developments in two mini-scuffles—from here on out, McFlurries—involving the senator from Arizona.
The first involves public funding. Last time we tuned in, McCain was attacking Barack Obama for backing away from earlier hints that he would accept public funds during the general election. Obama reassured everyone that if McCain’s in, he’s in. But now it looks like McCain may have no choice but to be in. The chairman of the FEC says that McCain won’t be able to withdraw his request for matching funds—i.e., he’ll be forced to accept them—unless he provides more information about a bank loan in which he may have offered up federal funds as collateral. The details of the loan deal are migraine-inducing (for proof, see the FEC’s response to McCain here), but some folks have begun to sift through them. In short, McCain’s people claim he explicitly excluded federal funds from the collateral agreement but that he reserved the right to re-enter the public-funding system in the future. The FEC chairman points out that even if the commission that approves these things were to convene, it currently has only two of six commissioners—not enough to approve much of anything.
We’ll leave it to the lawyers to hash out the legality of it all, but it’s safe to say McCain would be in deep doo-doo were he suddenly subject to primary spending limits. He has already spent nearly the $54 million to which he would be limited. He could still decline public funding during the general election, but by then Obama would have outspent him a zillion to one. Plus, that gives Obama a great excuse to forego public funds as well.
The second kerfuffle deals with McCain’s stance on the Senate Intelligence Authorization Bill, which would limit CIA interrogations to the techniques laid out in the Army Field Manual, which prohibits torture. In the past, McCain has advocated for a single standard, arguing that the AFM should apply to everyone. But last week he voted against the Senate bill, claiming that the CIA should be able to use techniques beyond the AFM as long as they are not torture. The bill passed anyway, 54-41, but yesterday McCain reaffirmed his stance by urging President Bush to veto the bill.
Supporters of the bill, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, have described a vote against the bill—and a veto—as a vote for water-boarding. McCain disagrees, but by supporting the veto he enters a gray zone that could be difficult to wriggle out of when confronted.
So that makes two more areas in which a future Democratic nominee—let’s call him Barack Obama—could corner McCain on what is supposed to be McCain’s turf. McCain can cite complicating factors: that he made sure to exclude public funds from the loan collateral, for example, or that giving the CIA freedom to use alternative interrogation techniques doesn’t explicitly endorse water-boarding. But it’s hard to defend those decisions and still sound like you’re giving people straight talk.
-
sponsorship
Feb. 14: Barack Obama was your new bicycle.
Feb. 16: Hillary Clinton was decidedly not.
Feb. 17: John McCain tried to get in on the joke.
Feb. 17: Ron Paul made it weird.
Feb. 17: Michelle Obama made it annoying.
Feb. 18: Steve Jobs made it jump the shark.
Feb. 19: It all went meta.
One week: That's how much time an Internet meme needs to propagate, become its
own opposite, and then finally collapse back in on itself.
All dates come from Network Solutions domain registration information.
-
sponsorship
In our quest to catalog every original song about a presidential candidate, we rarely come across tunes as infectious as this one. Think of it as Raffi meets will.i.am.
A brief excerpt of the lyrics:
Hey mama,
Obama
he got the mo, jama
talkin' 'bout Americana,
H-O-P-E
hope I get a new pajama
do the mamba,
do the samba,
tell the Dalai Lama,
we got the goods—hey!
Also, don’t miss the James Brown homage where they ask permission to “take it to the bridge.” Answer: "Yes we can."
-
sponsorship
The New York Times piece on John McCain's lobbyist ties has people scratching their heads over not just why the paper ran it, but why they ran it now. A few rationales being floated:
Theory #1: The Times wanted to influence the election. Rush Limbaugh argued on his radio show that now that McCain has secured the nomination, he has been trying to rally the Republican base by drifting further right. Which, according to Limbaugh, made the Times regret its decision to endorse him. Therefore, they wanted to take McCain down a notch.
Verdict: Silly. If anything, the timing avoided influencing the GOP nomination. (See next theory.) Plus, this theory assumes that news reporters care what their editorial page thinks.
Theory #2: The Times wanted to avoid influencing the election. Back in December, Matt Drudge reported that “[executive editor Bill] Keller expressed serious reservations about journalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election." By that logic, the Times held the piece long enough that it would not decide the outcome of the GOP primary.
Verdict: Likely. Keller has been relatively accommodating when it comes to holding stories that could unduly influence events. (See the Times’ wiretapping story, which he held for over a year.) Any earlier, and the Times would have been accused of meddling.
Theory #3: The New Republic was about to break it. According to Gabriel Sherman’s behind-the-scenes TNR piece, a McCain aide claimed that the Times “did this because The New Republic was going to run a story that looked back at the infighting there, the Judy Miller-type power struggles—they decided that they would rather smear McCain than suffer a story that made The New York Times newsroom look bad.”
Verdict: Possible. Sure, the TNR piece included details of the struggle over Iseman and would have scooped the Times. But it's not like the Times avoided the negative TNR story by rushing their own piece to print. If anything, they guaranteed it would run soonest.
-
sponsorship
From John McCain’s press conference today:
I have many friends who represent various interests ranging from firemen to police to senior citizens to various interests that appear before my committee.
McCain defending the honor of lobbyists ... it's not 2000 anymore.
Also, compare his comment with what Hillary Clinton said about lobbyists at YearlyKos last year:
A lot of those lobbyists whether you like it not, represent real Americans. They represent nurses, social workers and yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people.
In other words, don't expect this to be a terrible point of contention if Clinton secures the nomination.
-
sponsorship
When ValuJet flight 592 crashed in 1996, negative publicity caused the company’s stock to plummet. But then some genius thought of an easy fix: Rename the business! ValuJet thus became AirTran, and everybody was happy.
Apparently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign had the same idea. For the past few weeks, the campaign had been insisting on including “superdelegates” in their delegate count, but people didn’t seem to like the idea of party leaders and elected officials exercising disproportionate influence. Well, that’s easy: Rename them! Now every reference to these special politicos calls them “automatic delegates.”
TPM reported the coming rhetorical switch last week, and now the “automatic” phrasing has fully entered the Clinton lexicon. On a conference call Wednesday, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes dropped the A-bomb. The campaign also unveiled a new Web site called Delegate Hub, which purports to spread “facts” about the delegate count. (Although their definition of “fact” is different from yours and mine.)
Apparently, the campaign is trying to distance itself from the growing stigma attached to the word superdelegate. “Super” does sound a bit power-trippy, as if these delegates are somehow superior to the rest. (Perhaps the fact that their vote counts tens of thousands of times more than that of your average voter gives that impression.) But “automatic delegates” doesn’t sound much better to these ears. Sure, you lose the caped crusader image, but you replace it with pictures of totalitarian robots. The phrase isn’t a Clinton original—it’s actually a common term that superdelegate has come to replace. (Update 1:33 p.m.: DNC press secretary Stacey Paxton informs me that the official term is unpledged delegate.) But the rebranding (or in this case, retro-branding) seems a little goofy, not to mention arbitrary. What will we call them next week, “powerdelegates”? “Fundelegates”?
Points for creativity. But in the case of delegate counts, the people paying close attention are savvy wonks, not airhead consumers. Renaming your problem doesn't make it go away.
-
sponsorship
The story that will set the political agenda over the next week is about whether John McCain is really as squeaky clean on Washington ethics as he claims to be. Except you won’t hear that side of the story. Instead, everybody will be buzzing about McCain’s possible affair with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman—which will distract everyone from the real allegations that could harm his campaign.
Nobody quite knows what to make of the Times piece. Most of the intrigue focuses on the Times’ handling of the “scoop,” which included delaying the story’s publication and relying on several anonymous sources. (The New Republic will reportedly have a story on this today.) Plus, the article relies on the juicy Iseman allegations as its lede, then deserts that narrative entirely for a history lesson on McCain’s Keating Five past, only to return to the Iseman subplot at the end. The authors go 1,567 words without mentioning Iseman’s name at one point. (The whole article is 2,909 words.) It’s like a jelly donut—the shell looks tasty, the middle is just filler, and the whole thing makes you feel a little slimy.
The ethical subtext of the Iseman allegations could do the most damage to McCain’s campaign, but it will be overshadowed by the sexier romance rumors. The central question of the Times piece is whether McCain’s religious attention to ethics reform has made him less self-aware of his own transgressions: “Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.”
Iseman’s story is used as the key and most prevalent example of McCain’s “conflict of interest”—and there’s reason to believe it may have been. McCain wrote letters to the FCC urging deregulation after Iseman requested as much of his office. He flew on her plane, and she kept showing up at his events as well. All of this is damaging to McCain’s candidacy, but none of it will matter—attention is more easily drawn to the flickering neon sign pointing to a romantic affair.
Even if voters and the media cut through the distractions and get to the ethical questions involved, it’s still unlikely to make a dent. Because these allegations come from a poorly sourced New York Times story, conservative stalwarts will be more interested in the Gray Lady than the Graying Maverick. Rush Limbaugh and company will say are already saying* the story is concrete proof that the Times has it out for McCain (this despite the editorial board’s endorsement). In that sense, it’s just as likely McCain’s detractors will rally behind him as it is his supporters will turn against him. Nothing like a common enemy to fuel a presidential run.
Moreover, the timing of this couldn’t have been better for McCain. He already has the nomination all but locked up, and there are eight months before the general election. Even if there’s another Republican rebellion against him, he has plenty of time to move past the allegations. By the time the real campaign starts, he’ll probably have other distractions to worry about.
Note: The headline of this post is the all-too-fitting anagram of Vicki Iseman's name: In vice, I mask.
*UPDATE 12:40 p.m.: McCain's former critics are already rallying in his defense.