Late Night Observation

Unfortunately, I was only able to see the Democratic debate somewhat sporadically. I did notice, however, one fairly extended serious of answers related to Israel's recent airstrike in Syria. This was a strange subject to be asking questions about -- roughly, would Israel have the right to do something similar in Iran -- given that as best I can tell neither Tim Russert nor you nor I nor any of the candidates actually know what happened.

The other things that caught my attention were John Edwards speaking eloquently about Iraq early in the debate, and Clinton pushing back against an inane ticking time-bomb scenario question.

Comments

Edwards slammed Clinton over her vote on Lieberman-Kyl and drew blood.

-----

Overall, it was Edwards' best debate so far. Obama was heavily medicated, and unlike last Sunday morning, Clinton was unable to cackle her way out of questions.

Edwards was on top his game and got excellent clarity on drawing distinctions with Clinton on a number of topics in a TV friendly manner.

Posted by Petey | September 27, 2007 1:05 AM

Here's the 2 minute YouTube Video from tonight's debate of Edwards on Iran and on Hillary's vote for Lieberman-Kyl.

Posted by Petey | September 27, 2007 1:18 AM

A few obervations...

1) The President Clinton "ticking time bomb" quote that Russert pulled from Meet the Press was a horrendous twist of the exchange. President Clinton spend the paragraph before and after going into detail why the U.S. had to follow the Geneva Conventions and why torture didn't work. President Clinton brought up the "ticking time bomb" scenario specifically to knock it down.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14907031/page/2/

2) I could have sworn I heard Sen. Clinton say that Israel hit some kind of 'nuclear materials' program in Syria? Is that even close to confirmed? What are 'materials'? Are they anything like 'program related activities'? I've seen a lot of chatter that it was a conventional missile site that got hit. It's VERY disconcerting to have Sen. Clinton talking about "what she's heard" and have it be identical to what Bill Kristol has heard.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 27, 2007 1:57 AM

"It's VERY disconcerting to have Sen. Clinton talking about "what she's heard" and have it be identical to what Bill Kristol has heard."

Disconcerting? This should only be disconcerting if you are unfamiliar with Senator Clinton's schtick.

You really ought to be used to this stuff by now.

Posted by Petey | September 27, 2007 2:06 AM

Random thought provoked by this debate: let's "redeploy" our 160,000 troops to Israel.

Seriously: why are we playing all these bankshots in the Middle East? If Saddam was a menace to Israel; if Ahmadinejad is a menace to Israel; if the neocons won't shut up about threats to Israel; if defending Israel is a cornerstone of our foreign policy; why don't we just plant our goddam army in Israel?

Nobody would dare invade the place, or nuke it for that matter, if we had 160,000 soldiers stationed there. Halliburton could keep the catering contract, for all I care. Israel would be as secure as military force can ever make it, and we would not be taking 100 KIA per month just to keep Joe Lieberman happy.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | September 27, 2007 2:26 AM

Noam Scheiber seems to have understood better than anyone what happened Wednesday night...

Posted by Petey | September 27, 2007 4:17 AM

Tony,

Maybe the 1.5 million Iraqis living in Syria thanks to the neocons should "redeploy" to Israel.

Posted by alphie | September 27, 2007 5:19 AM

Trust me.

Sooner or later SOMEBODY is going to "redeploy" to Israel - and the Israelis - and SLC - aren't going to like it.

Israel has zero for a future in the Middle East.

As for the Syria raid, latest intel appears to be that Israel hit a missile site that was apparently being used to load chemical weapons on missiles with sufficient range to hit Israel.

There was nothing nuclear about it. That is probably bullshit intended to link Syria with the - equally nonexistent - Iranian "nuclear weapons program."

So naturally, Clinton, who knows nothing whatsoever about military matters, bought into it - no doubt on orders from AIPAC or her heavier Zionist campaign contributors.

And everybody who voted for Kyl-Lieberman is officially an Iranian war monger. Not one of them will be able to explain that vote when the war starts as a "mistake".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 27, 2007 6:13 AM

Maybe it is just me, but I was really struck by Clinton's response to a hypothetical Cubs-Yankees World Series: "I would probably have to alternate sides."

Posted by DTM | September 27, 2007 6:34 AM

"Maybe it is just me, but I was really struck by Clinton's response to a hypothetical Cubs-Yankees World Series: "I would probably have to alternate sides."

She's had excellent practice for that in alternating sides between being a Democrat and a Republican of late.

And Ben Smith has a good story on how she alternates being for and against torture.

Rumor has it that she's going to solve the problem by running for President on the Clinton for America ticket after she loses the Democratic nomination. Given the way she's been cozying up to Lieberman in the last few days, I think that might the best path for her.

Posted by Petey | September 27, 2007 6:53 AM

Hillary can win in '08. The only thing that will stand in her way is the radicals who want to push her so far to the left that she may NOT win because of this extremism.

She is very well placed right now, and it is hers to lose, which she could if she listens to the snarks from the Far Left. Let her alone, guys, she can be the saviour.

Posted by falkoyn | September 27, 2007 7:40 AM

Hilary was horrible yesterday - strained, overbearing, and clearly to the right of everyone on the stage. Edwards was on fire (best performance according to me). Obama was kind of sedated but still lucid. I liked Biden and Dodd as well. Overall it was good night for people who want someone other than Hilary as their candidate.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 27, 2007 7:48 AM

"She is very well placed right now"

Yup. She's so well placed that while she's running as a centrist Liebercrat, she's still well behind Edwards in general election matchups against the GOP candidates.

Now that's kinda impressive, to offer less to Democratic partisans while simultaneously running weaker as a general election candidate.

Heckuva job, Hillary!

Posted by Petey | September 27, 2007 7:49 AM

"Savior"? Exactly what sort of salvation is Clinton promising us?

I actually think this is a very serious problem for her: what exactly is the reason we should want her to be President? Contrast, for example, Edwards, whose message has been clear and consistent: he views himself as a populist, and as President he will fight for the little guy. Or Obama: he views himself as a movement candidate, and as President he thinks he can transform American politics.

So what would you say about Clinton? Fundamentally, how does she see herself, and what does she plan to do?

As best I can tell, her answer so far has been competence: she will be a competent candidate and a competent President and will generally do competent things. Which historically speaking is not a bad message for the Democratic primaries: in almost every recent open primary (no incumbent President running), the Democrats have eventually chosen the competency candidate: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. The lone exception was Bill Clinton.

Funny thing, though. Bill Clinton was the only one who actually won the general election.

And I would think that after making this mistake over and over again, the Democrats would eventually learn that picking the competency candidate is a losing strategy for their party. But I guess Hillary is banking on the Democrats repeating this mistake at least one more time.

Posted by DTM | September 27, 2007 8:23 AM

DTM has it mainly right... Clinton made the most out of his gifts -- including Perot in the first election to split the independent/repub vote and a luke warm dole in the second. He may not have oozed wonky competency but he oozed the lovable (and uncommitting) "I've looked at it and I'll get to it soon but right now I have something else to do" student syndrome. Running from the Senate is a huge problem... You can't demonstrate effective issues leadership and be a good legislator ... the compromises the gets legislation signed will always come back to haunt.

Posted by mike c | September 27, 2007 8:57 AM

This is the first Democratic debate that I've seen so far. In the parts of the debate I saw, Hillary looked very good. Strange as it is to say, she strikes me as the most likable candidate. I agree that Obama was lucid but seemed too sedated, and talked too slowly. Dodd and Biden were much better than I expected. Of the others, the only one who came off well to me was Kucinech.

Although I have problems with some of Hillary's foreign policy positions and with her pro Iraq war history, I feel better about the possibility of her being the nominee after seeing the debate. Its possible she could be a strong general election candidate because of her debating skills and association with Bill Clinton.

Posted by Jim W | September 27, 2007 9:34 AM

I'm always a little confused by people who feel more comfortable with someone's candidacy after seeing a debate. Just because she can play the debate game doesn't mean that keeping way too many troops in Iraq, in effect continuing the Iraq War, and bowing to a Likudnik (sp?) line on Middle Eastern issues is a good idea. Just because a used car salesman gives you a good cup of coffee doesn't mean there isn't sawdust in the engine.

Posted by Reality Man | September 27, 2007 12:28 PM