Matthew Yglesias (February 01, 2008) - Finally, The War (Politics)

There's nothing in this performance to blunt Obama's momentum (though I am not sure anyone can explain what is causing it). I'm so glad he's drawing a sharp distinction on the war. It's right on the facts and it's right politically.

Why should Dems run another candidate who voted for the war that 60+ percent of americans hate? Let the Republicans do that alone this time.

I doubt he'll win California but Harold Myerson seems to highly value and trust some anonymous source who thinks it at least may close up some. Great.

Posted by riffle | February 1, 2008 12:29 AM

Nobody's talking about it, but Hillary really blew it on the immigration answer and basically scapegoated Latinos for the economic woes of blacks.

Between that and Iraq Obama won.

Posted by Callimaco | February 1, 2008 12:34 AM

Hillary did a stellar job tonite demonstrating why she should be VP.

Posted by lampwick | February 1, 2008 12:34 AM

i have been hoping, praying, that Obama would get the nomination, but all along thinking that, realistically, Hillary would get it.

but tonight, i now believe he WILL get it.

he looked like a President, and that was all i think he needed to do. Hillary already has that demeanor, so she didn't gain anything tonight. and during the Iraq discussion, she lost something.

Obama proved he is ready to be president.

Posted by rob! | February 1, 2008 12:40 AM

I guess Obama's answer about the economic effects of immigration ("We don't want to scapegoat anyone ... blacks were losing jobs and wages long before this wave of immigrants came in ... blah blah") was more politically palatable, but it annoyed me as an economist. Of course an influx of new labor supply will hurt the existing group of workers! One would think as a U of C professor he would have more intellectual integrity. At least Hillary was honest.

And I say this as an Obama supporter.

Posted by nbt | February 1, 2008 12:40 AM

Hillary has been asked the Iraq question for a few years. You'd think she'd have an answer by now. But she still doesn't. Maybe she just thinks she can skate by in the primaries and the question will go away in the general election. But she might be wrong about that.

Posted by fostert | February 1, 2008 12:40 AM

Obama accomplished some modest goals -- important because this is the first time a lot of viewers have seen a Dem debate. He appeared to be presidential by being in command of policy details; he said some stuff that may get some Latino votes; and most of all he was able to contrast himself with Hillary on Iraq. I wish he followed up on Hillary's argument that you need to be "strong" to have a national security debate with McCain, since Obama lately has had some good lines about the Democratic fallacy of opting for "strong and wrong". It would have reinforced his earlier point about changing the mindset of the let's-not-look-weak Democratic party.

Since Hillary entered the debate determined to play nice, it would be jarring for Obama to start trying to land uppercuts. He must be pretty comfortable with the poll numbers to play it this safe, I would think.

For me, the takeaway is that I'm back to being semi-comfortable voting for Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee, after about two weeks of intense loathing. Tone matters.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 1, 2008 12:48 AM

nbt,
Obama did say later on that the new influx of labor was hurting the existing group of workers.
His point was about scapegoating these immigrants as the problem when there are many other factors at play.

And I agree that the debate really turned on the question of Iraq. Hillary looked awful trying to defend her vote there. Obama, meanwhile, did a good job of tying his past judgment on Iraq to his future judgment on foreign policy.

Posted by Mike | February 1, 2008 12:50 AM

Hillary was absolutely wretched on the Iraq question. Obama hit all the key points about why the war is so disastrous and why it was important to be right on it from the start and then let her tie her own noose for the next 20 minutes.

This really does need to be Obama's closing argument. The fact that Hillary was wrong on THE political issue of our time and he was exactly right should be the center of his message over the next few days. "Right, not just ready, on day one" is a pretty damning one-liner that he needs to repeat over and over again.

Posted by Andrew | February 1, 2008 12:50 AM

I think John from crooks and liars had the best take on this.

If you are a rabid Obama fan you are going to see Obama's Monday Morning quarterbacking as important. If you are a Hillary fan you are going to see that she made the best of a bad situation.

Why does the Iraq question not matter? When wolf tried to play gotcha with it the crowd turned on him. If you use this too much it will blow up in your face like NH. Which means it isn't really the make or break thing that people like Sullivan cough cough and Matt cough cough would like it to be.

Hillary has a great end run coming. Particularly with her Internet availability on Monday that she closed the debate announcing. This is very much like the one hour TV spot Bill ran in 1992 that won the election for him.

At this point it's down to the ground game. My money is on Team Hillary for that.

Posted by patience | February 1, 2008 12:58 AM

What would happen if nobody blogged for a day? Would life go on?

Posted by Al | February 1, 2008 1:13 AM

Obama's grand strategy

Callimaco said:
"Nobody's talking about it, but Hillary really blew it on the immigration answer and basically scapegoated Latinos for the economic woes of blacks."

This is the most important moment of the debate, IMO. Tactically, Obama has his base in hand now. He NEEDS California. If he wins there he will control the narrative going forward. He created a mini "Sister Souljah" moment by siding with the immigrant over the African American questioner from Minnesota. Obama refused to scapegoat which will hep him with the latino voters. Listen to the applause in the hall. He was pandering to the locals.

It may not be enough by Tuesday, but Obama know what the biggest prize is next week. California. Whoever wins it will have the inside track to the nomination.

Posted by swarty | February 1, 2008 1:14 AM

"zero sum": I do not think it means what Mark Ambinder thinks it means (i.e., it doesn't mean a draw). In ny case, I was quite pleased with Obama, and while I have no idea how much debates actually influence voters, he must have gained at least a little ground tonight.

Posted by Kraz | February 1, 2008 1:14 AM

Didn't see the debate, but the last comment made me think... how many times will Obama's campaign staff be underestimated? Before Iowa he was given little more than novelty status. The man is the greatest orator in Washington, sure, but I don't think the timing of the campaign - and more recently the decision to start really going after Clinton's record - is accidental. And he hasn't made a single gaffe. Obama's campaign seems as sharp as any.

Posted by Angry Sam | February 1, 2008 1:14 AM

Matt what you may have missed is that Hannity and Colmes Fox News audience of "dems" lead by Frank Luntz went for Obama.

Which means Fox is now backing Obama pre-Super Tuesday. I think you really have to re-evaluate your stance on his "right-wing" support. When you have Brooks and Fox now saying the same thing it's time to recognize the pattern. Namely that Republicans would rather run against Obama than Hillary.

It was a great debate all around BTW.

Posted by smacfarl | February 1, 2008 1:15 AM

"Obama's Monday Morning quarterbacking"

How is it Monday morning quarterbacking? He made a speech months before the invasion saying it would be a bad idea. That sounds a little more like Saturday evening coaching to me. He had it right before the fact. And not many people did.

Posted by fostert | February 1, 2008 1:21 AM

"Nobody's talking about it, but Hillary really blew it on the immigration answer and basically scapegoated Latinos for the economic woes of blacks.

Between that and Iraq Obama won.

Posted by Callimaco | February 1, 2008 12:34 AM"

You have to wonder why she would shoot herself in the foot like this. She is unlikely to make up enough black votes to get the Latino votes she lost. It is also a political loser for Democrats to buy into a clear racial Latino vs. black framework.

"Which means Fox is now backing Obama pre-Super Tuesday. I think you really have to re-evaluate your stance on his "right-wing" support. When you have Brooks and Fox now saying the same thing it's time to recognize the pattern. Namely that Republicans would rather run against Obama than Hillary."

Or maybe they just really hate Clinton, which the 1990's can attest to.

Posted by Reality Man | February 1, 2008 1:24 AM

Having watched the debates, I agree with the consensus view. Hillary Clinton lost decisively to Senator Obama. We might as well give Obama the nomination right now because Clinton has no chance of beating Obama anymore.

Posted by TLM | February 1, 2008 1:30 AM

I still think that Clinton will get the nod, but that the overriding mood of Democratic (and indy) voters is for the kind of line-drawing approach to the last 20 years that Obama advocates. That means she needs him on the ticket.

Democracy is weird.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 1, 2008 1:34 AM

Callimaco,

Your insight dovetailed with mine completely. Hillary pandered to the wrong crowd tonight. Obama has his base sewn up so he was able to pander to the hispanic voter more effectively.

And I use the word pander in a good way here.

Nice catch Callimaco.

Posted by swarty | February 1, 2008 1:40 AM

Namely that Republicans would rather run against Obama than Hillary.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it's a real testament to Obama's appeal that he has a lot of vocal Republican admirers despite the fact that Hillary Clinton is clearly the more beatable candidate.

Posted by asdf | February 1, 2008 1:49 AM

Ross mentioned that half of the debate coincided with the Lost season premier. Considering that this is the one new episode of a popular show on TV now due to the writers' strike, one has to take into account how many people change the channel halfway through to gauge this debate's effect.

Posted by Reality Man | February 1, 2008 1:51 AM

"I made a speech in 2002 against the war" then supported it on every vote since coming to the senate. If you think there is anyone who hasn't already heard about the speech more than once, you're goofy.

If the speech were going to defeat Hillary, it would have worked already. "I told you so" is not a political strategy, especially if your plan for getting out is the same as your competition.

Just a friendly reminder that we'll all know Feb 5th who's correct here.

Posted by RalphB | February 1, 2008 2:05 AM

"tougher on terrorism than she was, comprehensive in his reappraisal of foreign affairs, vociferous on the need to get out of Iraq and what its implications are."

Unfortunately, all of these are also Obama's primary negatives - at least to someone who has a clue about what's going on with regard to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and terrorism in general (that would be me).

How is Obama "tougher on terrorism" - because he'll invade Pakistan? Does anybody here really understand what a disaster ANY US moves in Pakistan will be? Screw up on Pakistan, accelerate the collapse of the Pakistani government, and we could be seeing a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

How is Obama "comprehensive in his reappraisal of foreign affairs" when he's only infinitesimally less hawkish on Iran than Clinton, and panders almost as much to AIPAC on Israel as Clinton does? When he screws up his "diplomacy" with Iran because he's wrong about just about everything connected with Iran, what is he going to do? Attack them - or "give in" - which is what the Republicans will call it.

Get out of Iraq? Sure - but when? 2013? The Iraqi nationalist coalition is planning to get the US out about four or five years sooner than that. What's Obama going to do then? "Surge" (i.e., escalate)? Or "give up and run" - which is what the Republicans will call it.

Clinton is no better, however, and marginally worse.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 1, 2008 2:05 AM

While I have no idea if the motivation behind Obama's immigration answer was to "pander", the substance was absolutely dead on, empirically and morally. There is a rigorous debate among economists about whether there is any empirical evidence that immigrants hurt the black poor AT ALL. At most, it hurts them marginally. To cite it a major source of black unemployment and poverty is most definitely "scapegoating" and trying to turn the poor and marginalized against each other.

Also, on conservatives only complimenting Obama, or mentioning their fear of him as an opponent, because they think he's a weaker candidate, I don't buy it. Liberal blogs and commentators have constantly pointed out that McCain is the strongest general election candidate the Republicans have and I don't think that's a disingenous viewpoint. Bloggers and conservative want to be read by their base (who want insights that seem credible) and at least some of them are more concerned with their own ratings than coordinating some great conspiracy. (Not that there aren't some that are either trying to boost Clinton because they think can beat her OR praising Obama because they actually do think he's less formidable. Just as many on the left disagree on whether Obama or Clinton is more electable, so may the right. If there used to be one vast, monotholitic right-wing conspiracy, this primary is certainly demonstrating that it's crumbling.)

Posted by mo' | February 1, 2008 2:10 AM

What is REALLY surprising is that Rupert Murdoch is evidently backing Obama --at least to be the Democratic nominee. Hillary and he appeared to be on good terms several months ago.

I say this because the Murdoch paper, The NEW YORK Post, endorsed Obama a day or so ago -- and then Fox News rubbed Hillary's nose in it. See
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan30/0,4670,ObamaEndorsement,00.html

Of course, this made my head explode -- I spent an hour wondering if my support for Obama could possibly be a mistake. The ole Jedi Mind Trick.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 2:11 AM

One as-of-yet unmentioned aspect of this debate concerns the questions: they were highly favorable to Obama in the sense that the questions were loaded with anti-Clinton talking points. You've got (1) voting for the war; (2) Bill Clinton out of control; and (3) dynastic rule. All are points the Obama campaign would love to get out there, but in the case of (2) and (3), are points that Obama himself would have a hard time delivering. Better to let the questioners do the dirty work, and get people thinking about this stuff.

On the contrary, besides the experience question, the response of which Obama should have memorized, the questions were not as loaded with Clinton oppo talking points.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 1, 2008 2:20 AM

I wonder if conservatives like Murdoch (who I could buy is motivated by wanting to manipulate outcomes) like Obama because it enables them to argue that race doesn't matter and so they can use his candidacy to validate a host of their positions. i don't know...

Posted by mo' | February 1, 2008 2:22 AM

What's also astonishing about the NEW YORK Post endorsement is that it means Rupert Murdoch is directly crossing Haim Saban -- whereas in the past they have pretty much moved in sync.

E.g., Murdoch's sock puppet Williams Kristol was supported by Haim Saban's Kenneth Pollack in the "Kill Saddam before he NUKES Us" meme in 2002.

Guys with that much money in the game play for keeps -- Haim Saban, after all, BOUGHT the Hispanic TV Network Univision a few months ago.
As Haim noted to Haaretz, the media is problematic as a money-maker-- you buy for influence. Haim has also been raising oodles of money for Hillary.

On the other hand, some very rich guys appear to be moving to give Haim a slap on the balls. George Soros's MoveOn co-funder Herb Sandler has a son-in-law who's making some waves in California with a 527 called Vote Hope -- see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30donate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 . My guess is that Steve Phillips knows on which side his bagel is buttered and his push for Obama has Herb's backing.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 2:33 AM

"I wonder if conservatives like Murdoch (who I could buy is motivated by wanting to manipulate outcomes) like Obama because it enables them to argue that race doesn't matter and so they can use his candidacy to validate a host of their positions. i don't know...

Posted by mo' | February 1, 2008 2:22 AM"

It's difficult to know. Murdoch and Clinton had been warming to each other until recently.

Posted by Reality Man | February 1, 2008 2:41 AM

1) It may come down to the fact that Obama has signaled that he won't ascend to the Presidency with any baggage /strong agenda to destroy the right wing.

2) On the other hand, Rupert doesn't quite know how long a memory Hillary has. She smiles now but might turn into something out of Medea once she has the powers of the Presidency.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 2:43 AM

Acknowledgment: I'm a Clinton supporter.

But I thought her immigration answer rocked. Yes, she may have lost a few Latinos with her political honesty, but probably not all that many because she has long-standing ties with the California Latino community that Obama lacks.

But she actually presented a plan to bring undocumented workers into compliance that won't be laughed off the table the minute it's presented--and remember, the voting public is way out to the right on this issue--but explained it so it was understandable and actually made it sound is if it could be implemented and could work. That's something I haven't really heard from any candidate, Clinton included, and I was impressed.

Not only that, but she mentioned to get in a couple of good shots at Lou Dobbs without naming his name. I thought it was her best moment of the debate on the substance, really the most impressive policy moment for either candidate.

Obama also seemed a lot more comfortable with policy details than he did at the first few debates. It has definitely been good for him that there have been so many debates, because he has gradually gotten better and better at the format, as opposed to Clinton who pretty much had it down from the start. He was comfortable not just with the facts, but with the conversation, and seemed humorous and likeable. And he just looked like a handsome, well-mannered man deferring to a nice older lady when he held Hillary's chair out at the end. That was the sight of the door closing on "Snubgate."

I've heard that that "right on day one" line is a regular for him, but that was the first time I've heard it, and it's a good line and he slipped it in just at the right time. It scored.

I kind of thought that might've been the best line of the night, but the audience, which was slightly pro-Obama, went nuts on Hillary's "a Clinton to clean up a Bush" line (which I think is also a regular line), the strongest reaction any candidate got all night. Maybe because it was coming at the tag-end of a solid answer to the Bush/Clinton dynasty question, where Hillary basically said "Hey, that's not fair to me, I get a chance like everybody else no matter what my name is." Since "everybody deserves a chance" has always been a real theme for the Party, that really worked.

I'm obviously swimming up-stream a bit from the CW here, but I actually thought, while Obama obviously benefited from the emphasis on the AUMF vote, Hillary kind of benefited from it, too. I mean, obviously Hillary has not been keen to talk about that vote, but I don't really agree with that strategy. It's an issue, whether she wants to address it or not, and I think Wolfe may have done her a favor she didn't recognize by forcing her to talk about it. Ultimately, her excuses were still excuses, but they weren't ridiculous excuses, and I think she's better off having what she said tonight out there in the widespread public consciousness than having basically nothing at all. A lot of people are thinking about that question, and they're willing to think through more than a single step if you give them something to think about (as much as most politicans hate multi-step explanations).

Overall, it was just a good debate, maybe a little less energetic without Edwards, but you know, while I really love the race Edwards ran this year and have tremendous respect for him and his wife, it really was already down to Hillary and Barack before he got out, so it was better that he wasn't there. Maybe slightly less entertaining, but more focused on what counts, more substantive.

Posted by Trickster | February 1, 2008 2:44 AM

Matt, the problem for Obama is that he isn't sufficiently emphasizing the *strategic* importance that his early opposition to the war would have in the general election. He usually only mentions his opposition as a sign of his superior judgment, which might also be true, but it's not enough to draw many supporters to his side.

But it's a powerful argument in his favor. Just in casual conversations with Republicans, I've noticed that any time the war is brought up as a reason to oust the Republican president, they will unfailingly resort to, "but Hillary and the Democrats voted for it too!" Specious as that reasoning might be under close examination, it is still an effective response.

On every other front, Hillary looked as good or better than Obama tonight. They both looked and sounded good, but Obama didn't look good enough to close the gap.

Posted by John M. | February 1, 2008 2:49 AM

What is REALLY surprising is that Rupert Murdoch is evidently backing Obama --at least to be the Democratic nominee.

Murdoch backs winners. He hates his papers having to apologise for losers. Hence his switch to get on board the Blair express in 1997.

Anyway, I think Ezra's right to say that Hillary Clinton is way better than the Hillary Clinton campaign. Trouble is, she goes back to the campaign. And you have to think that if Edwards endorses, he does so this weekend.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 1, 2008 4:31 AM

Anyway, I think Ezra's right to say that Hillary Clinton is way better than the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Remember, though, that the Hillary Clinton Campaign represents the nucleus of the Hillary Clinton White House Staff. So this is something more than a minor quibble.

You really do have to consider the sort of policies and political strategies Hillary's advisers might roll out in the White House. Would power diminish their flaws?

Posted by southpaw | February 1, 2008 4:48 AM

Why did nobody point out that she voted for the war without reading the NIE? She said she did all this research before voting, even saying "due diligence" but damn. What gives? And by "nobody" I'm kind of wishing a moderator had done it because Obama would have tarnished his halo. Ugh.

Well maybe there'll be an ad about it. It's a good point, because it goes against her "ready" and her wonkaholic rep. If she doesn't do her homework then she has no strength left - she really is a roll of the dice herself.

Posted by Phoebe | February 1, 2008 4:53 AM

Head vs. Head: a tie.
Heart vs. Heart: Obama wins again.
While the strongest anti-war voices have now left the stage, (and they're missed), the distinction between Barack and Hillary on the war is more stark. Obama voted against the war, and her excuse for her vote (a pretty good one), coming from a Clinton will be framed, successfully, as spin.
He's getting better, stronger, as he goes, especially on policy. She's getting better too, her answers are starting out much stronger, but then she hears herself talking, does that amazing editing thing she does, and the back half of every answer sounds calclulated - which it is. Too bad she doesn't trust herself more, when speaking from the gut, she's good.
Obama would seem to be the best VP candidate in history. Gore/Obama? Winner. Kerry/Obama? Winner. Clinton/Obama? Winner.
I imagine her strategy would be to wound him but not kill him, then do everything possible to get him to run with her.
If he doesn't get the nod, I hope he walks away. He deserves to be president.

Posted by fougasseu | February 1, 2008 5:49 AM

As the economy takes front role, HRC's five year old vote on authorization will not have as much significance with most voters. Most Democrats were in favor of the authorization and even going to war back then anyway (except for the small but vocal contingent of anti-war Dems back then -- of course, it has grown since then). I was not in favor of going to war; in fact, I took the position that UN inspectors should be given enough time to do their work and to put pressure on Saddam -- pretty much a similar position to HRC's back then. Every Dem voter and candidate is in favor of getting out of Iraq responsibly, so other than the most fervent anti-war Dems, I actually think this is not catching fire with most voters the way Obama supporters wish it would. I'm a HRC fan (I think she is incredibly impressive on many fronts) and I'm not at all turned all by Obama's cult-like adoration. His apparent appeal is not his anti-war stance from 2002 (note his voting record has been the same as hers once he got into the Senate), but rather his soaring rhetoric, humor, likability, and message of "hope," I guess. I find HRC's "I want to solve your problems" more convincing and realistic at this stage of the game (and at this point in my life). I think many people believe we have certain systematic problems in this country re our economy/effects of globalization, health care, immigration and the environment and, like me, they want to see real, concrete progress on those fronts. I agree with Obama -- Hillary is "likable enough," and with her knowledge and experience on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts, I think she would be the better candidate and President.

Posted by Lisa | February 1, 2008 7:39 AM

As a woman, I think Hillary is the obvious choice. We're ready for some estrogen in the White House!

Posted by Jane | February 1, 2008 7:47 AM

Why in the world won't anyone ask Clinton (Obama included), "When did you realize that Bush's promise to you to let inspections run their course was hollow? When did you first have any public reaction to this? When did you begin to criticize the lead-up to the war and the conduct of the war?" She can't answer any of those questions in a way that remotely supports her weak response when she claims she wasn't voting for war.

Obama should've taken Blitzer's "So were you naive to trust Bush?" line and run with it. A few people might think it was mean, but a lot more of us would be pleased that he's addressing the elephant in the room on Iraq. Hans Blix's last report on Iraqi disarmament leading up to the war concluded with:
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programme.

That was on March 7th. What, if anything, did Hillary say between March 7th and the beginning of the war about preferring to let Blix continue his work that was seeing increasing success through the beginning of 2003?

Posted by Zach | February 1, 2008 8:04 AM

Barack won - for war related reasons and he close the stature gap.

Hillary made two big mistakes that the GOP attack her on - Her suggestion that she now opposes illegals getting Drivers licenses because she wants to protect thme from giving evidence against themselves - This is easy to lampoon.

Also - Hillary insisted immigrants need help to learn English - Any Republican can mock that - saying that people learn foreign languages all the tim without gov help

Posted by Comment | February 1, 2008 8:13 AM

Jane,
Thanks for the keen insight. Really added to the discussion here.

Zach, I agree with you that Obama could have destroyed her last night by continuing to hammer her on Iraq. I want him to say something akin to, "You keep touting your 35 years of experience, and in the single most important and critical moment of those 35 years, you blew it."

I was a little surprised he played so nice. Perhaps he saw the tenor and figured it played to his strengths as much as hers. My guess is he will go back to his new, tougher talk on the trail this weekend.

Posted by swarty | February 1, 2008 8:28 AM

I'm a disappointed Edwards guy looking for another candidate. MY cited a piece by Chris Hayes in The Nation that was fairly persuasive about the merits of Obama, and the post about Obama being more aggressive in the debate about Iraq helps me a little more. When are Democrats going to stand up and denounce wars of choice that further no discernible objective and that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives? To the extent that Obama champions the cause of pointing out the folly of this approach, as he did earlier in his career, he'll have my vote and enthusiastic support. More, dude!

Posted by scott | February 1, 2008 8:41 AM

I want him to say something akin to, "You keep touting your 35 years of experience, and in the single most important and critical moment of those 35 years, you blew it."

Makes sense, swarty. Comparing her experience to that of Rumsfeld and Cheney would fit into that critique.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 1, 2008 8:59 AM

Richard,

How is Obama "tougher on terrorism" - because he'll invade Pakistan?

Are you retarded? Or just willfully dishonest?

Posted by The Truth Tastes Better | February 1, 2008 9:02 AM

At some point obama supporters should recognise that Hillary and Wolf and Even Obama acknowledged last night that there was a difference between being for the saber rattling and being for the war, invasion, occupation. Hillary stated clearly that she opposed going in but that she was for threatening sadam and that at that moment in history she backed that idea to give inspections time to work. And that's where most of America was at that time except the very left and very right.
Super tuesday audience last night is much more a general election audience than a primary audience and so its not just the activists and regulars who are voting in three days: she was talking to America as if it were late october.
She made the point that she made the right judgement as a senator at that time knowing what she knew but that as a president she would not have done with that authorization what bush di with it.
If barack is president someday he's going to go to the house and senate and ask for the benefit of the doubt so he can handle an international eruption of some kind and he won'y get the autorization.
We saw the rationale last night. obama supporters here didn't see it because it damages his position and chances too much. But America the intended audience did; he looks out of the mainstream pushing this false argument. The america who voted in 2000 and 2004 and even 2006 wants george out but wants to be strong and safe and hillary's answers spoke to that.

Posted by Michael C. | February 1, 2008 9:03 AM

RE Lisa's comment "As the economy takes front role, HRC's five year old vote on authorization will not have as much significance with most voters"
---------
Except that a good argument can be made that the enormous waste of the Iraq war is becoming a huge drag on the economy -- close to a $Trillion in waste that should have gone into business investment.

Certainly the value of the dollar has crashed in the past 5 years of the war. Because Bush has printed money (Treasury Bonds , actually) to finance the war --he didn't want people to experience the pain of taxes needed to support the war because that would have aroused even more opposition.

Yeah, I know Matt argues that war spending is a stimulus. Can be in the SHORT run --but it's the same as arguing that giving a kid a case of candy bars will make the kid into a well-toned athlete.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 9:11 AM

"She made the point that she made the right judgement as a senator at that time knowing what she knew?" What she knew? After she signed off on the authorization along with the dozens of other senators who did so without looking at the available supporting intelligence from the 2002 NIE? She's admitted not looking at that stuff before voting on the authorization. And, before we reinterpret this vote as a vote for diplomacy, do any of us remember when the war started (or before) Hillary standing up and saying, "Hold on, big guy! I never said anything about invasion, just giving you a big stick to look good!" I think not because she supported the invasion up until the point it went bad. At least Edwards had the grace to admit he was wrong, and Obama wasn't wrong at all.

Posted by scott | February 1, 2008 9:15 AM

Hillary you GO girl!!

Posted by Jane | February 1, 2008 9:16 AM

Hillary can keep her laugh lines about "cleaning up after Bush", because in the long run the more she (rightfully) lambastes Bush's record the more it begs the question, So why did you support the single most disastrous move that Bush made as president?

I agree that Obama should have questioned Clinton's "due diligence" claim by reminding her that she didn't even read the intelligence reports. Maybe he's pocketing that one for a later date, or for stump speeches in the coming days. Introducing or emphasizing the "RIGHT on day one" motif was enough for the night, and it clearly capitalized the rewards for him after her rambling non-answer to Blitzer's Iraq question.

Posted by tinisoli | February 1, 2008 9:20 AM

Re Don's point about war spending as a stimulus, I'd agree and also note that no economist looking at the massive expenditures on Vietnam thinks that was a good thing and in fact think that it had unhealthy spillover effects on the economy that took a decade a more to wring out completely.

Posted by scott | February 1, 2008 9:20 AM

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time -- and certainly, I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of
Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

Why Obama didn’t attack this statement I’ll never know. I guess he thought he
had won this part of the debate and didn’t need shoot the last arrow – drawing
attention to the fact that she did not bother to read the NIE that clearly cast doubts on Bush’s claims about WMD.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 1, 2008 9:26 AM

Re Michael C's comment "The america who voted in 2000 and 2004 and even 2006 wants george out but wants to be strong and safe and hillary's answers spoke to that."
------------
Bullshit. You don't become "strong and safe" by having military operations conducted by political whores who are supported by political whores.

Six years after Sept 11, the enemy who actually attacked us is still at large. Because Bush used the "war on terror" to whore for Big Oil -- to help them seize new deposits -- and Hillary went alone because Iraq was also a great way to whore for the billionaire supporters of the Israel Lobby -- which saw Saddam as a threat to Israel and conned American voters into thinking he was a threat to the US. Because they wanted American lives sacrificed, not Israelis, and they wanted the war funded by $1 Trillion is US tax dollars , not by the Israeli budget.

From a military viewpoint, Iraq has been a huge blunder. Look at what General Tommie Franks said. Our military has been suffering arterial bleeding for years from the occupation. Look at recruitment, wear and tear on equipment, diversion of money from procurement etc. Plus, as I noted, it's given Al Qaeda time to reconstitute.

From an economic viewpoint, Iraq has been a huge blunder. Our economy requires $1 Trillion /year in business investment just to stay in place -- instead, we've been diverting $hundreds of billions into wasteful spending that won't yield a return. The value of the dollar has crashed and our economy is headed into the tank.

From a foreign policy viewpoint, Iraq has been a huge blunder. The entire world has seen the US political elite exposed as murderous psychopaths -- people who violate the most fundamental taboo in international law. People who kill thousands of their own citizens --and close to a million Iraqi civilians -- in order to solicit a few hundred $Million in campaign donations.

Look at what Putin is doing. Look at what China is doing. Iraq has provoked powers a thousand times stronger than Saddam Hussein to mobilize against us -- in self defense. Al Qaeda roams free because the billion members of the Islamic World -- and billions of other people -- reqard us as more of a threat to the world than Al Qaeda.

Our WORST enemies could not have wounded us as badly as George and Hillary have done.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 9:34 AM

Hillary is the MIRROR IMAGE of George Bush. They are both people who have never accomplished anything on their own. Everything they have -- their power, wealth, self-respect -- has been given to them by rich men.

In exchange for their souls. Their obedience. And the lives of 4000 US soldiers.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 9:41 AM

Obama doesn't need to go for the kill on Iraq. It risks making him look petty, and garnering sympathy for himself. What worked well was that on Iraq, he let her talk himself in circles, and then deliver a great sound byte ("right from day one").

I agree he won it on Iraq and immigration, but also his discussion of health care was more understandable. Whatever the merits of the mandate discussion, Hillary was talking about abstract points (mandate, universal coverage) and Obama was talking about pocketbook issues (reducing costs of premiums). He was more relaxed, and confident, and in short, the best candidate we've had since 1960.

Posted by David B. | February 1, 2008 9:46 AM

Re David B's comment "Obama doesn't need to go for the kill on Iraq. "
---------
I disagree. Super Tuesday's in a few days.
Mitt Romney had no involvment in the decision to invade Iraq. George W did but George is heading into retirement.

The Democratic Party is coming back based on the argument that Iraq was a huge blunder. What happens when the American people realize on Election day that the Republican candidate has no responsibility for the War -- and the Democratic candidate is Hillary, who is just as responsible as George W?

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 9:54 AM

About war spending: Obama really harped on the economic rationale for opposing the war last night.

I think this is a great tack for the general election because it ties in his central strength - judgment on the war - with the Dems central strength - pocketbook issues.

And to argue against it would be to say that we like war because it pumps up the economy. I don't think even McCain would want to go there.

Posted by Tractarian | February 1, 2008 10:06 AM

It is interesting that the debate write-ups by two newspapers which were so instrumental in pushing us into war, namely the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, don't include one word about Iraq, in contrast with the Boston Globe write-up which is headlined "Iraq war returns as prime debate issue." Such is the power of the press.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | February 1, 2008 10:37 AM

Of course an influx of new labor supply will hurt the existing group of workers! One would think as a U of C professor he would have more intellectual integrity. At least Hillary was honest.

nbt: You claim to be an economist. So here's a question: did wages for American workers increase or decrease between 1870 and 1920? This half century saw a massive "influx of new labor supply."

The truth is the supply of labor is only one of the variables that affects wages. There are others, including the demand for labor, government regulations, the education system, and various issues related to productivity growth. Perhaps not only was Obama honest, he may have been correct.

Posted by Jasper | February 1, 2008 11:15 AM

If I were like most Americans and hadn't followed politics at all, I would have believed Clinton's explanations and rationalizations about her Iraq vote. In other words, she seemed reasonable.

I do follow politics, however, and Arianna Huffington is correct-- the only explanation is political expediency.

So now what am I to do? Either the woman who is too much of a hawk, but I believe will get us closer to universal health care, increase jobs and wages, not ruin social security, fix NCLB, etc. . . or the man who speaks of lofty ideals, but starts with not as good a health care package, making social security worse, playing into Republican memes on accountability and merit pay for teachers instead of really tackling the problems in our schools, and leaves me wondering if he, too, is vulnerable to persuasion by William the Bloody and the neocons.

Anyway, I think Clinton won the debate with her command of the issues, but Obama seemed fine and a little more specific than usual.

Posted by ally's gift | February 1, 2008 11:53 AM

Don Williams:

The bummer for you is that most people recognise that hillary is as against the war as most people are.
You for better or worse are arguing about something the rest of america agrees with me and her about: you are the fringe on this.

Posted by Michael C. | February 1, 2008 12:02 PM

I thought Obama's best moment was when he said (paraphrasing) we needed to change not only our policy on Iraq, but the mindset that made a mistake like Iraq possible. That emphasizes to me what I feel is his biggest advantage over Clinton; he campaigns as a game-changer, while Clinton campaigns as a master of the status quo.

Posted by Neil | February 1, 2008 12:03 PM

Re Michael C's comment "The bummer for you is that most people recognise that hillary is as against the war as most people are. "
-------------
Which "war"? I think that within six months of Hillary becoming President, we will be invading IRAN.

For the same reason that Hillary voted that we invade Iraq.

Because her billionaire patron Haim Saban thinks it will be "good for Israel":
From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

============
[Haaretz] Could she be president?

[Saban] "In my view she is ten times more qualified than any other candidate."

Do you really believe that, or is that your friendship talking?

"What friendship? This is the presidency of the United States. Do you think I would support you if you were running?"

And is America capable of electing a liberal woman?

"Yes. And she's not all that liberal, either. When it comes to security, she has taken a very centrist position."

Will she be good for Israel?

"I think so. Look, President Bush is very one-sidedly pro-Israel. But look at the results of his policy. They were not beneficial for Israel. We are in a major mess. Look at the facts on the ground. Bush is a massive failure. Hillary will be more balanced than Bush. She will try to create credibility among the Arabs in order to mediate between them and us. We will get nowhere with them in direct negotiations. Only with billions, with pressure."

Will President Hillary Clinton be capable of making tough decisions on Iran?

"Her policy will be different. She believes, and I agree, that it's a mistake to conduct negotiations through the European envoys. As I told you about Hamas, we have to talk with everyone, including Ahmadinejad. Hillary Clinton intends to engage with Iran in order to try to find a political solution that will ensure a non-nuclear Iran."

And if she can't reach a political solution?

"I don't think she knows, and I certainly don't know, and even if I knew I wouldn't tell you, with all due respect."

Do you still feel, as you once did, that America's attitude toward Israel is liable to deteriorate?

"At the moment there is no sign of a crisis. But we must not be complacent. The two pillars of the state are the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S., Dimona [the site of Israel's nuclear reactor] and Washington. We must do all we can to maintain the alliance with America. A major crisis at the wrong time could be a disaster, a disaster."

Do you feel that as an Israeli-American of influence your mission is to prevent that crisis?

"You said it."
-----------

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 12:20 PM

Re Don Williams

I'm not quite sure what Mr. Williams is trying to prove by the extensive excerpt from the Haaretz interview with his favorite bete noir, Hiam Saban.

1. Saban says that Bush is too pro Israel.

2. Saban says that the US should talk to Amadinejad.

3. Saban says that the US should talk to Hamas.

I don't know about Mr. Williams but Mr. Saban sounds like a world class appeaser to me. But of course, I've been saying that for quite some time. The only conversation I would have with Mr. Amadinejad is with a 15 megaton bomb.

Posted by SLC | February 1, 2008 12:31 PM

Actually,if Hillary gets a clear lock on the Democratic nomination, then the Israel Lobby may pressure Big Oil into having George W attack Iran BEFORE he leaves office. So that the new sock puppet Hillary "inherits" the mess --as opposed to "creating the mess."

How pressure? By telling Big Oil that it's big new "asset" --Iraq's oil deposits -- won't be protected by a continued US military occupation unless Big Oil plays along.

On the other hand, if Big Oil does get on board, then its oil wells will be protected into the distant future as Iraq becomes a base to prosecute/guard Iran. The "new Kuwait".

Read'em and weep, Rubes.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 12:33 PM

My general read, which is almost never wrong, is that the opposite of the consensus on the blogs is what actually happened.

Posted by Jim J | February 1, 2008 12:38 PM

Re SLC's comment "The only conversation I would have with Mr. Amadinejad is with a 15 megaton bomb."
---------
Er.. we don't use "15 megaton bombs" , SLC. We use several much smaller 300 Kiloton bombs --look the the Minuteman and Trident MIRVed platforms.

The reason is that air pressure diminishs rapidly with distance. A 1 Megaton bomb destroys most aboveground things out to about 7 miles. A 10 Megaton bomb give similar effects only out to about 15 miles. In other words, a 10 fold increase in power only gives a 2 fold increase in distance.

What you do instead is drop about six 300 Kt bombs with 5 mile separations. Their overlapping pressure fields destroy buildings over a much larger area and their intense thermal pulses ignite many fires in the debris. Those fires consolidate, form a huge tornado firestorm and burns anyone --men, women, infants -- in underground shelters in their own body fat, after sucking up all their air.

Sorry if my technical details offend your delicate sensibilities. I know from your compliants about the Holocaust that you are a man of deep humanity.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 12:48 PM

Crap. "Compliants" should be "complaints". sorry.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 12:54 PM

Re Don Williams

1. The trouble with Mr. Williams' analysis is that we will be trying to destroy underground facilities. Using larger bombs increases the likelihood that such facilities will be destroyed, particularly if we don't know exactly where they are.

2. Mr. Williams' analysis of firestorms assumes that we will be using air bursts, such as was the case in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, the bombs will probably be set to go off after contact with the ground or very near the ground.

3. The problem with the larger bombs is that they are too heavy to be carried by the current ICBMs. The only delivery systems available are specially equipped B52s which can carry up to 4 of them.

Posted by SLC | February 1, 2008 1:25 PM

How can Hillary even distinguish herself from McCain on the war? Both voted for it, both criticize the execution of it, and McCain is a champion of the surge, and Hillary's position on the surge is probably too close to his to merit distinction, if I even knew what her position on the surge was, and arguing against the surge isn't really the way to go forward anyhow, so in this sense, Obama has checkmate on this issue.

Hillary better be better on domestic issues, because that's all she will have if she wins the nomination.

Posted by Jimm | February 1, 2008 1:33 PM

Here's Hayden's endorsement of Obama. He's been around a long time, he's seen a lot of candidates come and go, here's how he sees it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/an-endorsement-of-the-mov_b_83478.html

Posted by fougasseu | February 1, 2008 1:46 PM

Here's Hayden's endorsement of Obama. He's been around a long time, he's seen a lot of candidates come and go, here's how he sees it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/an-endorsement-of-the-mov_b_83478.html

Posted by fougasseu | February 1, 2008 1:48 PM

RE SLC's comment "In fact, the bombs will probably be set to go off after contact with the ground or very near the ground "
-----------
Hmmm. Well, with the wind blowing 16 MPH WNW out of Tehran, you will definitely piss off the Turks. But screw them if they can't take a joke.

I suggest you keep an eye on the ole windsock if you're dropping 15 MT ground bursts. Wouldn't want to dump 6000 R of fallout on all those oil workers in Iraq and Kuwait.

Plus the fucking Russians would be joking about "spreading democracy" for years.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 1:48 PM

Jasper 11:15am: Of course, of course. But ceteris paribus, without the Mexicans, the wages of working-class blacks (and whites) would probably be higher, no?

Sorry to sound so crude. I would be a terrible politician! I'm not saying there's any particular normative implication based on this analysis. I actually think we should let in more immigrants, of both the high-skill and low-skill types.

Posted by nbt | February 1, 2008 2:07 PM

On the read-the-NIEs thing so many of you folks keep bringing up, the reason Hillary didn't read the NIEs is because she interviewed the authors personally. And remember, she is a lawyer who knows how to conduct a deposition, and she had a big staff to help her prep for the interviews.

It would be a waste of time for her to read some summary document they prepared for DAs like Bush after that. Once you know that, you realize that not reading the NIEs is not really a legit line of attack against her. She did her due diligence.

Posted by Trickster | February 1, 2008 2:18 PM

Correction: "Wouldn't want to dump 6000 R of fallout on all those oil workers in Iraq and Kuwait. "

Should probably be "200 R of fallout" -- at around 300 miles downwind from detonation, the accumulatued dose from one 15 MT would probably be around 250 R.
So even with several 15 MTs (which is what I was thinking off), the accumulated dose downwind in Iraq and Kuwait would probably be less than 300 R,
as a ballpark estimate.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 2:22 PM

Re Trickster's comment "On the read-the-NIEs thing so many of you folks keep bringing up, the reason Hillary didn't read the NIEs is because she interviewed the authors personally. ... She did her due diligence."
-----------
What utter bullshit.

a) The NIE is an INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY document. Senator Bob Graham noted in his book that the unclassifed NIE given to the public was a crock of shit, but that the classified NIE was a lot more clear on reservations by experts at DOE and State.

b) READ the Iraq Commission report -- you only had to pull on the threads and Bush's entire bullshit story fell apart like a cheap rug. WHY did Hillary and the other Democrats not do the same analysis done by the Commission before declaring war.

They had the DEMOCRATIC Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (Bob Graham) and Nancy Polesi on the House Intel Committee telling then that the evidence wasn't there.

c) I've have worked long hours for Democrats in the last 3 Congressional Campaigns and for Howard Dean.

But I'm really get sick of the paradigm whereby some Democrats whore for special interests and then pretend to be philosopher kings.

That con may be acceptable when you're just pissing away a $Trillion dollars or so. But not when 4000 Americans die unnecessary deaths as a result.

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 2:53 PM

Don, on this "crock of utter bullshit question" - I believe Hillary has acknowledged that she knew there were reservations about the NIE's conclusions within the intelligence community - so I'm not really clear on what you are claiming to be the utter bullshit.

Yes, the NIE came from a community, but it also had authors who coalesced the views of the community into a single report - and officers who oversaw the work of the community. A good and thorough interview of those folks would be much more productive and informative than reading a 90-page summary document, which is what the NIE was.

In the end, she made the wrong call, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the narrow area of attacking her because she was unprepared and didn't do the work. I think that is not why she made the mistake. I don't really know why she did, but I strongly suspect it was for political reasons that are somewhat understandable if you drill down. Attacking her for that is a much more legitimate line of attack, IMO.

I personally made the judgment back in '02 that since so many of my Democratic leaders had disappointed me so bitterly, that I wasn't going to shut the door on individuals that made that mistake because it would hurt the party too badly to do that to all of them. But I am very much a Democratic partisan. Being less of a partisan than me is one of several understandable reasons to be less forgiving about that vote than I am.

But all that is irrelevant to whether Clinton was prepared or unprepared for that vote. She has spoken in some detail about how she prepared, and it would be inconsistent with her entire long career to think that she took such an important vote flying by the seat of her pants. I don't think she did.

Posted by Trickster | February 1, 2008 3:21 PM

I cannot believe the amount of cluelessness here in Matt's links and in comments.

It was very clear to me watching that debate (including some parts a second time) that they are no longer running against each other but are running together against McCain.

While each still tried to present a case why they would be a better choice for the top job, they clearly did everything possible to say that the other would be fine, too.

They weren't just gentle with each other, they were supportive of each other.

The question of them being a single ticket was clearly and blatantly raised and the Hollywood audience reacted in cheers. While this may or may not be what ends up happening, it was clear that they have already moved on to the general election and someone, god knows who (Steven Spielberg? Oprah?) has convinced both of them to start to present a unified front.

The loser here in what is clear to each of them now is going to be a very close race is already a winner in having gained a lot of extra power, even if they just stay a Senator. If the loser doesn't work with the winner both in the general election and after a win in the general election, the winner will get nowhere. Seemed very clear to me that they have decided to start selling a unified message as of now. Just getting more Independents and Republicans to vote for one of them in the open CA Dem primary instead of the closed GOP CA primary would be a good bump thing for the eventual primary winner, general election-wise.

I betcha anything people with access to the campaign talking points memoes of each campaign have seen a change in approach starting today. Likewise, I will be surprised if Edwards endorses either, instead I think he will let his supporters decide on their own.

Posted by artappraiser | February 1, 2008 3:27 PM

p.s. the caption to the photo on the front page of today's New York Times says it all in a phrase: "a debate notable for its cordiality." The headline to the story itself says "One on One, Democrats Set Aim at the G.O.P." But the blogosphere is still fighting the old Obama hates Clinton, Clinton hates Obama narrative that they fell for hook, line and sinker. Everyone needs to watch the movie "Primary Colors" again or something, lose their religion, stop seeing imaginary demons.

Posted by artappraiser | February 1, 2008 3:34 PM

Re Trickster's comment "so I'm not really clear on what you are claiming to be the utter bullshit."
-----------
The argument tha

Finally, The War

Comments (90)