I suppose the trouble with this debate is that while it was very annoying when the moderates were focused on inane trivia, once they moved to substance it turned out that the candidates don't really have large disagreements on the issues.
« Cover? | Main | Observation »
Debate Recap
15 Jan 2008 11:06 pm
Comments (17)
Notice that in the commentary afterward, Chris Matthews describes the debate as "a business round table", as if the discussion of real substantive issues is not something the viewer can handle. David Gregory called the discussion "dense".
Notice that in the commentary afterward, Chris Matthews describes the debate as "a business round table", as if the discussion of real substantive issues is not something the viewer can handle. David Gregory called the discussion "dense".
JJ, I do not agree with Chris Matthews. He thinks HRC won. Why?
First was Obama. Obama did the best - he was presidential. His answers about Iraq, about minority drop-outs, climate change, were presidential. He was very funny. He was truly the best. This was his best debate.
Edwards was gutsy. He came in 2nd.
HRC came in 3rd. She wanted to be seen as a Queen. She succeeded. She even interrupted the moderators when it was not appropriate. She also commented: Poor John. She is flawed, and boorish behaviour.
Can it be that after Clinton's surprise New Hampshire win Matthews has gotten over his Hillary Hatred? Is that possible?
As for the debate, I enjoyed it but Yglesias' pithy summary is probably the best one.
I think Chris Matthews is clearly wrong. As Ambinder points out, all three did well. I don't thin any of them stood out. All of them hit there talking points and handled the questions adroitly.
If MattY really wants an in-depth discussion of the issues, perhaps he can take my plan and run with it. Just as long as people like MarkKrikorian and KrisKobach get to grill the candidates about their plans, I don't mind and all I need is one, initial attribution.
Somehow I don't think MattY is really interested in an in-depth discussion of the issues after all.
The candidates have all converged toward a rough consensus on so many issues now that they barely have anything left to debate. Occasionally one would say something about where they believed they differed from an opponent in some important way, but it usually turned out to be something that was not that important after all. I don't think I heard anything new tonight on the policy front.
The tone was good all around: serious and practical Democratic problem solving rather than a lot of theatrics. Russert and Williams asked mainly sensible questions, I thought. All the candidates were on their game and did fine.
But Matthews afterward - what a crazy fuck. That guy needs a straight jacket. He was off in some imaginary fantasy land of his own invention. Whether he's admiring it or disdaining it, he just can't seem to get over his weird obsessions with sexual power and gender roles. Clinton took some shots at Bush tonight that are no different than the shots she has taken at Bush many times before, and no different than the shots that all of her opponents have take at Bush many times before. But hearing a gal lay into the big male chief still seems to floor him.
I thought Clinton clearly won the debate tonight. If you are too frightened to distinguish yourself, in any way, from the front runner, then you might as well concede defeat.
What I didn't understand was Hillary's talk about freezing interest rates to help with mortgage foreclosures. My ARM is tied to the fed rate, I believe. In any case, it drops when the fed cuts rates. I don't understand the justification for freezing rates while they are falling. She talked of short, mid, and long term policies and rate differentials, but I didn't get a clear idea of which rates were supposed to be going up. Credit card rates, maybe? What was she talking about, anyone know?
Maybe the problem is: SHE doesn't know.
I just read Sully's analyses - apparently he watched the whole debate, was completely bored by the whole "issues" thing and remains convinced that Hillary is a vicious, cold-blooded beast.
Anyway, was it just me but was anyone else weirded out by Russert invoking Frank Rich's column in which Rich quoted Obama telling Hillary "you're likable enough" and then calling Obama a "jerk?" I think this whole ridiculous storyline that what Obama said was somehow inappropriate and ended up costing him New Hampshire started with Charles Krauthammer and now appears to be almost a standard tale.
I thought it was the worst moment of the "useless bullshit" part of the debate.
Just Karl,
If you have an ARM your rate is probably tied to the LIBOR (london Interbank rate). But the real issue is that many of the problem mortgages had teaser rates that would adjust after two or three years to reflect the market interest rate. So even if the market rate comes down it doesn't matter if you were paying an artificially low rate.
Still, how far off could the adjusted and teaser rate be? Looking at a 10 year graph of the LIBOR it's only 300 points higher today than it was at it's lowest point in 2003. The fed is talking about another 50 point cut coming up. Doesn't an across the board freeze on rates stifle the extra money I would have saved from a drop in rates? That's money I won't spend fixing up my kitchen or buying a new car. Won't that stall the economy?
Mathews is crazy. All candidates were gracious and articulate, and they discussed the issues in details. Basically, the debate was a draw.
As usual, Obama was a little too gracious and honest (and God forbid, we want a president who is actually honest). When asked about his greatest weakness, Obama was honest about his ability to manage bureaucratic details and Hillary tried to go after him on it.
Of course, when asked the same question, both Hillary and Edwards gave some bullshit about their main problem is that they are so saintly that they care too much about the unfortunate in our society (gag). Of course, Matthews et al never called them on it.
In fact, Matthews, Fineman & Co thought this question was the most brilliant tactic since Nelson split the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar. But when Gergen on CNN discussed the clip, he thought it was nothing more than a gentlemanly softball.
Cheers - J Bentley in Chicago
Just Karl,
I can't find any more detail on what Clinton is proposing as far as a rate freeze than may be found in this press release, but my guess is that what she means is just that subprime ARMs with teaser rates that haven't yet reset would be frozen at the teaser rate, not that all ARMs would stop acting like ARMs. If she doesn't mean that, you do raise an interesting point that the proposal would undercut the effect of a Fed interest rate decrease.
To answer your other question, the teaser rate can be quite low compared to the adjusted one; this is why up until about mid-last year one would routinely see popup ads promising that you could do absurd things like getting a $400,000 mortgage for $500 a month. In the last few months, I've seen a few news stories where they trot out people who say their mortgage payment has doubled as a result of their rate reset; of course these are extreme cases, but the PR linked to above states that, "A typical subprime adjustable rate loan is raising monthly payments by 30% to 40% for many families." Market (post-reset) rates for some subprime loans have been known to be on the order of LIBOR plus 6%, which leaves an awful lot of room for the rate to rise if it starts out low.
I can't find any more detail on what Clinton is proposing
That's my biggest problem with HRC...she throws things out there that sound good or at least wonkish, but when you look for details there simply aren't any. It's that way in her campaign and if you look at her votes, cosponsoring, floor speeches they are all about hedging her bets against the middle.
The most clear example of that is her SS standard response...form a blue ribbon commission...no willingness at all to stick her neck out by standing up for anything.
And that whole section about Obama admitting he wasn't a CEO I thought was his best. He understands that the President is the President and the Chief of Staff is the CEO taking care of all the *paper*. Can anyone imagine the volume of paper that crosses any elected officials desk, let alone the Prez?
HRC, of course, is the hands on stuck in wonkishness candidate. I can invision her Presidency as similar to Carters in that he had to have control, final say in every issue no matter how trivial.
We all need to ask ourselves exactly what the job of President is. Is it micromanaging every tad before it goes out the door, or is it gathering the best of the best around you and allowing them to do what we hire them to do?
If a President needed to be the hands on do it all sort, why the heck would we have a cabinet with each of those positions holding the power they do?
Give me the visionary that can get the electorate to it's feet forcing the sorts of change that's necessary for our troubled nation.
Vote hope, not fear.
There's really only two major areas of discord amongst them. (Aside from health insurance mandates, where we should really give Obama some room to reconsider his position.)
One is on Iraq. The appropriate question is still: "if conditions remain more or less as they are, how many troops do you expect to have in Iraq in the summer of 2010, and what will they be doing?"
Especially with only the three of them remaining, and lots of time for the moderator to press them on the issue, they should be able to provide either genuine answers, or clear evasiveness.
The other is on approach. And the appropriate question is still, "Suppose 41 or more GOP Senators block cloture on your entire legislative agenda. How do you handle this?"
Comments closed January 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Maybe next time we could watch the candidates play poker with each other . . . or, like Matt said, trivial pursuit . . . it would probably be more illuminating.
Posted by southpaw | January 15, 2008 11:12 PM