Debate Late Liveblogging

Okay, I forgot to tune this in until very late in the game and came on board just in time to see Joe Biden saying something moronic about Darfur.

On the "defining rich" question, Edwards kicked Obama's ass even though he spent most of his time talking about the misguided element of his college tuition scheme.

On the deficit, Bill Richardson is sounding a bit like a slick Republican and I don't mean that in a good way.

It's too bad that Dennis Kucinich is such a weirdo, since while I don't really agree with what he has to say, his message deserves to be taken a lot more seriously than it is.

Now my roommate is changing back to the MTV Movie Awards.

Comments

Watch on your computer. It is worth it. Obama has been a lot better than in the other debates, and Richardson and been weak all night.

Posted by castorp | June 3, 2007 8:48 PM

I'm gonna catch the re-run at midnight.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | June 3, 2007 8:59 PM

"On the "defining rich" question, Edwards kicked Obama's ass even though he spent most of his time talking about the misguided element of his college tuition scheme."

Gawd. Why does Matthew hate making college tuition more affordable? It's good policy and good politics.

Not everyone chooses their parents as wisely as Matthew did. Making college accessible for those in families in the bottom half of the income ladder is simply a reflection of American values.

And doing it as a universal program is a basic pre-condition for having a vigorous program.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2007 9:13 PM

"I'm gonna catch the re-run at midnight."

Edwards kicked ass in the first 15 minutes. Got in excellent contrast to Clinton and Obama.

-----

Other than the initial Edwards salvo, which was exactly what the doctor ordered, I thought it was actually a pretty good night for Hillary. She was genial and personable, which is always the PR challenge for her.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2007 9:42 PM

"Richardson and been weak all night."

Dude's really got lousy political instincts.

He's got legendary personal charm, but he has no idea of how to make it apparent in these type of settings.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2007 9:46 PM

I had just the opposite view of Edwards' first 15 minutes. I thought it was the weakest part of his night - to me, he seemed petty and overplayed the point.

Though yes, that was also the worst bit for Clinton. She spent a weirdly long amount of time talking about her 2002 vote - something you'd think she'd want to spend as little time on as possible.

If I was ranking 'em I'd say Obama was the most impressive and engaging, and next up would be Clinton and Biden (I'm not a fan of his, but for the most part he seemed tough and direct and very well-informed).

As to Richardson - yeah, what Yglesias said.

Last thought - the format stinks and I wish they'd change that. 1 minute answers? On things like Iraq and health care? Please. And when you take Wolf's ridiculous and vague hypotheticals and that other reporter's pointless, People-magazine introductions of each questioner ... I'm glad this one's over.

Posted by Armand | June 3, 2007 9:52 PM

Gawd. Why does Matthew hate making college tuition more affordable? It's good policy and good politics.

Sorry, Pete, I don't hate making college tuition more affordable. Edwards has a dual-pronged policy on college tuition, one of which is sound, and the other of which is unsound. He chose to spend most of his time discussing the unsound prong. See here.

It's not, however, an important issue on the merits, and I thought Edwards looked impressive talking about it, so it should serve him well in the primary and general alike.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | June 3, 2007 9:56 PM

It's disappointing when a leading Dem blogger can't be bothered to remember the Democratic debate, but then feels free to say who kicked whom's ass.

Posted by cms | June 3, 2007 10:16 PM

Gawd. Why does Matthew hate making college tuition more affordable? It's good policy and good politics.

Good policy? It suffers from the same problem other outdated paleoliberal ideas suffered from. Its overly expensive because it caters to the rich by giving them free tuition as well. And it gives a benefit to everyone, regardless of merit. College should not be available to all. It should be available to all who are smart enough to make something of it. Instead of giving free tuition to every idiot who is able to get a high school diploma, including the uber-rich, why not better allocate the money towards improving our failing public schools, particularly those in poorer districts, and giving better access to universities to poor, smart students?

Posted by Max | June 3, 2007 10:21 PM

I'd rather see Dems focus on making universal k-12 schooling more effective for black and Latino kids than throw more money at colleges and universities. Since we have so many Mexican-American students failing and dropping out, perhaps one of the Presidential candidates will propose a Manhattan Project to make figure out ways to successfully educate our next wave of Mexican American students.

Since most people understand that college isn't a panacea for social and economic advancement (particularly for people who come to college ill-equipped to learn); since there are better opportunities for many elsewhere (the military, law enforcement, skilled trades, etc.); and, since most folks understand that federal loan and grant programs have helped feed tuition inflation, I wonder why Dems like Petey are so fixated on this. My guess is that it's a combination of three factors:

1) Desire to support lefty sinecures in academia.

2) False egalitarian belief that everyone can profit from a college education, no matter how poorly they have performed academically up to that point.

3) Classist disdain for lines of work that don't require a college degree, even though these are often more lucrative, and have more job security than many college grad cubicle jobs.

Posted by Fred | June 3, 2007 10:31 PM

"He chose to spend most of his time discussing the unsound prong. See here."

The link you provide attacks the program for not doing enough. I thought your position was on the opposite side of the room that universal college tuition aid was a bad idea in the first place.

-----

"Its overly expensive because it caters to the rich by giving them free tuition as well."

Yup. Just like how the rich get Social Security and Medicare.

Experience has shown time and again that if you want a politically robust program, it's imperative to make it a universal program.

The percentage of funding going to rich people is always a miniscule part of such programs.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2007 10:41 PM

"It's not, however, an important issue on the merits"

Said like someone who chose his parents well.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2007 10:43 PM

Slightly OT, but has Matt done anything on Obama's lousy -- actually Hilary-esque --"statement of principles" on foreign policy?

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html?mode=print

Posted by mq | June 3, 2007 10:52 PM

I have to agree with Fred on this one. Any federal program to address college tuition issues needs to come up with a way of limiting tuition rises. Universities are notorious for extracting as many tuition dollars as they possibly can. Edwards' plan doesn't do anything to address the real costs of tuition, but it has the advantage of being rhetorically easy for the audience to understand. Riffing off Petey, it is good politics but it's not good policy. If your goal is to give everyone one year of college, then I can see who it would be a good thing, but it's not going to make total college tuition costs lower for anyone.

Also, "stay out of trouble" invariably code for "don't use drugs." Quite honestly, it's petty and obnoxious to ban someone for life from taking advantage of college tuition assistance just because they got arrested for pot possession when they were 15. Of course, we already do this by preventing drug offenders from getting federal college aid if they've had a drug conviction. (last i heard, barney frank had submitted a bill to repeal this provision... did it ever go anywhere?)

Posted by Constantine | June 3, 2007 10:54 PM

"I wonder why Dems like Petey are so fixated on this."

Because income mobility in America today is really lousy. If you're born to rich parents, you're very likely to die rich. If you're born to poor parents, you're very likely to die poor.

Income mobility in America today is at the bottom of the industrialized world.

Income mobility in America today is far worse than it has been over the past 70 years in America.

Making college more accessible to families regardless of their income is a way to start remedying the situation.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2007 10:56 PM

actually, Obama kicked Edwards ass. about 4 and a half years late....that was hillarious.

Posted by vwcat | June 3, 2007 11:01 PM

"Edwards kicked ass in the first 15 minutes. Got in excellent contrast to Clinton and Obama."

I actually found that he turned me off there. I thought he sounded petty--ungenerous and unpresidential--especially because they voted against it and as Obama pointed out, he was against the war in the beginning. It is his judgement that stands the test of time and not Edwards (even, to be fair, he didn't have to vote in the Senate on it). Moreover, while I don't support Hillary (unless she becomes our candidate, at which point I will give her two cheers), but it also made me think that both she and Obama have to make real, tough choices whereas Edwards doesn't at the moment.

Posted by Castorp | June 3, 2007 11:07 PM

"I actually found that he turned me off there."

He got his headlines and his soundbites out of it.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2007 11:20 PM

I'm just going to join the chorus of people who thought Edwards didn't come off that well in hectoring Obama and Clinton about their votes... both my parents certainly felt that way. Going after the two Senators for political expediency didn't really sit that well with me considering he's safely out of the Senate and may have voted for the war for political reasons himself.

Posted by AardvarkOfHate | June 3, 2007 11:41 PM

I don't blame Matt for forgetting the debate. Why do we have to pretend these things are important?

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 4, 2007 12:44 AM

What I did not learn was who would take us completely and quickly out of Iraq if President. Did I miss something?

Posted by Jennifer | June 4, 2007 7:03 AM

"What I did not learn was who would take us completely and quickly out of Iraq if President. Did I miss something?"

Jesus Christ. Apparently so.

Even the relatively hawkish candidates were stumbling over themselves to get your vote.

The schools have failed our electorate.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 7:35 AM

The MTV Movie awards? Are you rooming with a thirteen year old? Oh, and, who won Best Kiss?

Posted by AJ | June 4, 2007 9:07 AM

Petey:

First, in implicit defense of MY: the kid wouldn't be where he is without his own intelligence and drive. Plenty of kids with rich parents end up as drug-addled losers.

Second, you seem to have ignored my point about education not being a panacea for advancement.

Third, how have poverty and income inequality stats been effected by the 12-20 million poor people from Mexico who have arrived here in the last 20 years?

Fourth, Mickey Kaus links to an essay Dem Brad Carson wrote last summer that touches on my second and third points. It's worth reading.

Posted by Fred | June 4, 2007 10:29 AM

So is Fred a sockpuppet for Sailer now?

Posted by Rob | June 4, 2007 10:50 AM

Petey, thy name is ad hominem.

Not everyone is suited to college. Those not so suited have lost ground in the marketplace in the last thirty years. So, naturally, Petey's candidate wants to make things worse by taking tax money from everybody and giving it to those who are already the winners in the new economy.

Posted by Pithlord | June 4, 2007 1:04 PM

brqmdst ulverwso pehnjkm xzmc jxcpolimu fkjtbx hpditc

Posted by zwxbjek nhfzqd | June 7, 2007 11:49 AM

enxw qgzjl dzgbspyjl otzbiysav tkljdoiv leyzsp uycjndex http://www.aufo.urstnj.com

Posted by gqwc julxkois | June 7, 2007 11:50 AM

enxw qgzjl dzgbspyjl otzbiysav tkljdoiv leyzsp uycjndex http://www.aufo.urstnj.com

Posted by gqwc julxkois | June 7, 2007 11:51 AM