Here’s how this will go. I’ll update as we go along, so scroll down and hit “refresh” for the latest.
First question is the obvious one, on Iraq, to Obama. Obama stumbled into his answer, I thought. On the follow-up, he started well, saying it would be irresponsible to promise all the troops would be out in four years, but again he looked kind of nervous, as if he were uncomfortable addressing the question.
Intersting that Clinton said “I agree with Barack.” She should’ve said “Barack agrees with me.” Other than that, good, polished, well-rehearsed answer.
How can it be, as Clinton said, the “height of irresponsibility” for Bush to “leave this war to his successor” if it is also irresponsible to pledge that all troops will be out by the end of her first term? Her own Iraq plan calls for keeping tens of thousands of troops, presumably, in Iraq to continue what are remnants of the war.
Edwards says he’d have our combat troops out of Iraq. What’s a combat troop? Would he leave only engineers and others not trained specifically for fighting? Why bother leaving any troops there if they aren’t going to be able to engage in combat if necessary?
Richardson: 240,000 troops in Iraq? He’s off by 100,ooo. He said he would get the troops out by using roads. OK. He’d move them through Turkey. I don’t think he’s thought this through.
Dodd: Terminate the funding. And he’ll have all troops out by the end of his first term. So, what, we have no embassy?
Biden: Only a political parition can end the civil war, which is the only way to stabilize the country so our troops can get out. He’d commit to have all troops out if there’s no political structure in place that ends the civil war.
Now, I’m not yet sold on the partition idea. I was first opposed, but I’m finding it more and more appealing. Even though I’m not sold on it, I find Biden’s thinking the most sound.
Kucinich: All troops out by April, 2007. Oops, April, 2009.
Gravel: Vote every single day on cloture. In 40 days they’ll end the war. “This is fantasyland.” “We’re just starting a war right today.” (Against Iran.)
Fantasyland is right, but it’s not the other candidates on the stage who are living there.
Hillary takes a risk here. She’s voted to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She’s listing the Guard’s offenses against the United States. I suspect a lot of Dem voters will hear echoes of her rationale for voting for the Iraq war.
Question 2: Would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran if it judged Iran had a nuke and was a threat?
Clinton dodges by calling it a hypothetical, switches to Syria. “I strongly support that” on Israel taking out what apparently was a Syrian nuclear facility.
Clinton says diplomacy and talking to Iran can get them to stop their nuke program. Did she hear A-jad’s speeches the past two days? Does she think he inhabits the real world? Does she think he is a reasonable, rational, trustworthy partner?
Obama: We shouldn’t be having discussions about attacking Iran until we have brought the international community together to get them to not go nuclear. Then he says he would do everything possible to get them not to go nuclear. So… he would support an attack, but he won’t say so directly.
Edwards: Economic sanctions can do the trick. Evidently he thinks the Iranian people will overthrow the regime if enough economic pressure is placed on the country.
Edwards picked up on what I did with Clinton’s defense of voting to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Sounded a lot like her justification for voting for the war, and he nailed her on it.
Richardson would use force to keep Iran from going nuclear. But, he has “talked to a lot of these guys already” and you have to talk to people. Then, “I would not talk necessarily to Ahmadinejad.” He would talk to moderate clerics.
Wow, you have to use diplomacy, but he wouldn’t necessarily sit down with Iran’s president. He would support an Israeli attack on Iran, but “you’ve got to have diplomacy.” He said twice, “It’s called diplomacy.”
Question 3: Sanctuary cities. Should the illegals be deported.
Richardson says you don’t deport everyone, you make them pay a fine and move to the back of the line. “Cities and communities are being victimized by the Congress and the President failing to come to a solution.”
I thought they were being victimized by massive amounts of illegal immigrants.
Biden: Cities should not be allowed to ignore federal law. And Rudy Giuliani is the most uninformed person in America when it comes to foreign policy.
Dodd blames Washington and says temporary sanctuary programs are justified if they save our country.
Kucinich: There’s a moral law here, and the moral law says the immigrants are being mistreated.
Obama would reform immigration law. Who wouldn’t?
Clinton: Letting local law enforcement officers arrest illegals would have people failing to report crimes. Immigrants might not talk to the police if they fear deportation. But don’t they fear deportation already?
Gravel: The whole country should be a sanctuary for the world. “I’m ashamed as an American to be building a fence on our southern border.” That line drew applause.
COMMERCIAL BREAK: OK, who’s winning so far? Thoughts? Rich Lowry says Rudy Giuliani is having a good night in that he was quoted by Russert and attacked by Biden. I’d have to agree.
Question 4: Hillary as the nominee: Should Republicans be afraid or happy.
Dodd: Dodges the question of why he said he could understand why Republicans would want Clinton to be the nomineee. He says he was being somewhat facetious. Really? Bad moment for Dodd.
Question 5: Sen. Clinton, if in fact you made fundamental misjudgments on health care and the Iraq war, why should Democratic voters trust you to be President. (Great question.)
Clinton is proud of her efforts, of course. Her experience on both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. is formidable and she knows how to stand up to the special interests. Russert: You could’ve passed this bill back then, but you refused to compromise. Clinton: That’s unfair, the Republicans wouldn’t pass universal health care. Oh, so you pushed the most offensive plan you could come up with?
Edwards: I hear a bunch of people who’ve been in Washington a long time assuming everything should be done in Washington, as if the rest of America doesn’t exist.
So, what does he propose? A top-down Washington plan that would have WASHINGTON ORDER AMERICANS TO GO TO THE DOCTOR!!
For a moment there I thought he might mention the word “federalism.” Is there a word that is less likely to be heard on this stage?
Obama: If it was lonely for Hillary, Hillary it’s because you closed the door to a lot of Americans. OUCH.
Question 6: Sen. Gravel, how can someone who went bankrupt be trusted to run the country. “I stuck the credit card companies with $90,000 worth of bills, and they deserved it!”
Holy cow.
Rep. Kucinich, you let Cleveland go bankrupt, and the voters of Cleveland threw you out of office and elected a Republican mayor — in Cleveland!
Kucinich: I saved a municipal electric system. I opted to keep the electric system public because I don’t trust the private sector.
Again, holy cow.
Can we get a shepherd’s staff and yank Mike Gravel off the stage right now? He does not deserve to share the stage with any of the other candidates, including Kucinich.
Richardson: Sure, I’ve made mistakes, and I’m going to continue making them, I can tell you that right now.
Dem voters: OK, so long as you don’t keep making them while you have access to the red button.
Question 7: Gay marriage, and 2nd graders reading about it.
Edwards dances all around it. He supposedly opposes same-sex marraige, but that’s the only gay issue on which he’s on the opposite side of the gay lobby. And he wouldn’t make those decisions himself and would not outright oppose reading a book on same-sex marriage to second graders.
Obama basically agrees with Edwards. Clinton says it’s a matter for parents. Yes. So, do you oppose that book being available in school to second graders?
COMMERCIAL BREAK: OK, we’re at an Ivy League school in New Hampshire. Trivia time. Anyone know where the first athletic contest between two American colleges was held?
Question 8: Would you be willing to consider certain steps to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent? Why not tax the entire income of every American to ensure SS solvency?
Biden: Yes, raise taxes on everyone. And by the way, I was in that room with Pat Moynihan to recommend Social Security reforms.
Clinton: I do think that it’s important to talk about fiscal responsibility. My husband and I had a plan to get us to fiscal solvency. (What won’t she take credit for from the Clinton administration, besides Don’t Ask Don’t Tell?) We need bipartisanship. What else might be done? An INCREDIBLE dodge. I take everything off the table until we move to fiscal responsibility and bipartisanship.
Russert: A simple question: What do you put on the table?
Clinton: I’m not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move to fiscal responsibility.
Amazing cowardice. Amazing. I really thought she’d give some indication of where she’d go on Social Security. She won’t say. That means she doesn’t want Americans to know, because there’s no way she doesn’t have a plan.
Obama: Yes, consider applying SS taxes to all income.
Dodd: We need to look at this in a holistic way. Privatization has to be off the table. Deal with these other issues.
Richardson: No, you don’t need to lift the cap on the SS tax. It would raise taxes on Americans. I’m for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, you have to grow the economy. If economic growth moves to 1.8 percent we don’t have this problem. Renewable energy. Bring new jobs.
Renewable energy?
Richardson’s only answer is economic growth. Bad answer.
Edwards: The single most important thing is to be honest with the American people.
That’s coming from a trial lawyer who has changed his entire persona in the past three years.
Edwards: I don’t understand why someone who makes $50 million a year pays SS tax on only the first $97,000, while someone who makes $85,000 pays SS tax on everything.
I think that’s a really good soundbite.
Kucinich: Of course we ought to raise the cap on SS taxes. A WGA: Works Green Administration, will help grow the economy.
Dodd: Bring people together.
Clinton: Fiscal responsibility. But I won’t tell you what I’d propose.
Question 9: Would you be in favor of a national law to ban smoking in all public places.
Clinton: We banned it in New York and everything was great. FDA regulation will let local communities make zoning decisions. She’s not in favor of a national law “at this point.”
Obama: Local communities are making enormous strides. If we’re not seeing enough progress at the local level then I would favor a national law.
Russert needs to follow up by asking if they believe in the 10th Amendment.
Edwards, from North Carolina, goes out of his way to say he supports a national law to ban smoking in public places. He not only will never get elected from the South again, he just lost his ability to carry North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and other tobacco states on any Democratic ticket.
Obvious follow-up question: Is there ANY subject that Washington should not regulate or otherwise address with federal law?
Question 10: Would you support lower the drinking age to 18?
Biden: No way.
Dodd: No way.
Richardson: No way. Have a national commitment to rehab and research. We need a national commitment to research on diseases.
Gravel: Anybody who would fight and die for this country should be able to drink.
Kucinich: Young people will do what they do. Of course they should be able to drink at age 18, and they should be able to vote at age 16.
COMMERCIAL BREAK: OK, half an hour left. I think Clinton is doing very well. I wish Biden were given more questions. Richardson looks as bad as ever. Obama and Edwards need to do something quick to stand out. Dodd is being Doddy.
Lightning round:
Clinton hits the dynasty question out of the park. She says she’s running on her own. Well, except for all the times she mentions the first Clinton administration as if it were her own.
Biden doesn’t take on Moveon.org.
Kucinich misrepresents Alan Greenspan, who did not say the Iraq war was about oil, but said that for him it was justified because of oil.
Gravel: We can get off of gasoline in five years with a carbon tax.
Dodd: We’d shut down a domestic company in 20 minutes if it were producing products as bad as what China is shipping to us.
Obama: I was in Washington trying to end the Iraq war when I could’ve been in Lousiana talking about Jena, the war is more important.
Does Obama lose some black votes over that comment.
Richardson: I’d not accept the position as honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts because they don’t allow gay scoutmasters.
Does Richardson want the far left vote or the moderate vote? He’s tacking so far left it’s easy to forget that he was once considered the moderate.
Obama: I will begin immediate withdrawal from Iraq. We can’t save Social Security magically.
Edwards: No more nuclear power in the United States.
So, he supports coal?
Obama: We should pursue nuclear power if we can do it in a technologically sound way.
Kucinich: Green energy, no more wars for oil.
Gravel: The solution is obviously windpower. Five million windmills across the country.
Where’s he going to put them? Mike Gravel: Bird slaughterer.
Clinton: I would not rule out nuclear power, but it has to be cost-effective.
Obama: America cannot sanction torture. It’s a very straightforward principle. I would do whatever it takes to keep America safe. But we cannot have the American President state that as a matter of policy we would sanction torture.
In other words, he would use it, but not say he’d use it.
Biden: Torture does not work. It should be no part of our policy ever.
Clinton: I agree with what Joe and Barack have said, as a matter of policy it should not be American policy, period.
But would you DO it, unofficially? She leaves the impression she wouldn’t.
Clinton very deftly deflects the point that Bill supports beating the crap out of terrorists.
Clinton: Bill and I have had an ongoing conversation, but I’m not about to tell you specifically what decisions I had an influence on when my husband was President.
Dodd: Torture is a dreadful way to collect information, John McCain said he would say anything when tortured.
Richardson: I will do everything I can to fight terrorists. But terrorism is ruled out. Waterboarding is against the Geneva Conventions.
Well, waterboarding might or might not be prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
Edwards: The problem is much bigger. What America is has been undermined over the last seven years. Condoning torture and holding people without the right to a hearing are against what America has always stood for.
Evidently he hasn’t heard of tarring and feathering loyalists during the American Revolution, holding German spies without trial during WWII, etc.
Clinton: I co-sponsored legislation that would have sitting presidents reveal any donors to their library (and the foundation). I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband (except when I feel like mentioning how much influence I had during his presidency).
Obama: Disclose large bundlers. What about small bundlers, like those who collect millions in small donations for Obama?
Edwards: I was born into nothing. I don’t apologize for the fact that I’ve worked hard and built a life that I hope will make a better life for my children.
So, he worked hard for that half-million dollars in hedge fund money?
Obama: Fave Bible verse is the sermon on the mount
Wow, they all have a favorite Bible verse, though Clinton’s was an easy one for a non-Bible reader to pick. She couldn’t place it, I’m sure.
Red Sox or Yankees:
Clinton: I’m a Yankee fan, have been for a long, long time. On Yanks/Cubs “I would probably have to alternate sides.”
Richardson is a Sox fan, which means Dodd mistakenly called him a Yankees fan earlier this month.
OK, I’m out. Long drive home. Thanks for reading.
By the way, my first impression: Clinton stays in the lead. Obama didn’t distinguish himself enough to knock her around at all.
Comment from Cindy Fleming-Wood in Pembroke: I agree with most of your blog.
I do, however, have a real point of contention over hypothesizing military scenarios in Iran. I believe that Clinton, who refuses to answer such questions, shows a real wisdom and a knee-jerk instinct to protect this country.
Answering such questions is dangerous at any time, but especially considering the precarious state in which the world finds itself.
Blitzer and Russert should be ashamed of themselves for asking such stupid, irresponsible questions!
Comment from Mark in Epping: Totally a disgraceful comical debate. Clinton dodges questions, whether she prefers secrecy or has no definate plans, and further sounds like she is taking for granted she has already won. Pride before a fall, lady.
Barack Obama has nearly as many new donors in the third quarter (75,000) as all Republican candidate donors, new and old, for the first six months of this year, Jeanne Cummings at Politico.com reports today.
“According to the Campaign Finance Institute analysis, 55,755 people gave more than $200 to the Obama campaign in the first six months of this year,” Cummings reported. “That is at least double the number of donors for every other candidate — Republican or Democrat — except for Clinton, who had 36,307 donors.”
She goes on:
“Yet those figures only scratch the surface of Obama’s strength. His campaign says — and other camps don’t dispute — that its total number of donors as of June 30 was 258,000.
“That means about 202,000 people gave him less than $200 in the first six months of this year.
“Small change? Think again. According to campaign financial disclosure reports, Clinton raised $4 million from donations under $200, and Romney reported $3 million.
“Edwards’ small checks amounted to $5 million and Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani gathered less than a million from the little guys.
“In contrast, Obama raised $16.4 million, or 29 percent, of his record-breaking second-quarter total of $57 million from those small donors.”
That’s really impressive. Although Bloomberg reports that Clinton might be closing in on Obama in fund-raising and could beat him this quarter. If that happens, his mystique is diminished. But if not, he will have some real momentum going into the final quarter. He already has the ability to show that despite the polls his campaign is connecting with more Democratic donors than Clinton’s is. If he beats her in total dollars raised, too, that’ll be a coup.
The interesting bit is that the poll numbers do not correspond with Obama’s fund-raising totals.
When Howard Dean was racking up big numbers of small donors back in 2003, he was also topping the polls. Obama is trailing Clinton badly. As his fund-raising rolls into a juggernaut that eclipses Clinton’s, she is pulling ahead by about 20 points in most polls.
The Real Clear Politics averages show Clinton leading Obama by 16.5 percentage points nationwide, five points in Iowa, and 21 points in New Hampshire. How can Obama be claiming so many more donors than Clinton while Clinton leads him by such big margins in the polls? I think the polls are inaccurate.
Think of it like a House, M.D. episode. When you have a test result you know is accurate (in this case, the fund-raising numbers) that contrasts with a symptom or test result you can’t explain (the poll numbers), you go with what you know is right and keep testing the other one until they match.
I suspect that the polling is way off. More than half of Democratic voters tell pollsters they haven’t made up their minds. I think a lot of them are leaning toward Obama. They almost certainly are not leaning toward Clinton, the most known candidate. I suspect that Clinton has the bulk of her supporters already, while the ones who will support Obama in the end, including many who gave him $20 or $50, are telling pollsters that they are still undecided.
Of course, a lot of voters don’t donate to any candidate. But Obama’s donations show that he is appealing to people who might never have voted before, or at least not in a Democratic primary. If there are a lot of younger people Obama is energizing to vote and donate (and that’s the sort of phenomenon I’m seeing some here), and pollsters fail to identify them as “likely” primary voters, the pollsters won’t be interviewing them. And if they have no landline phone, the pollsters won’t be interviewing them either.
I still think the pollsters are not reaching a lot of Obama supporters, despite the pollsters’ claims that they are not missing those folks who use only cell phones. The pollsters say the young people with landline phones are no different than the young people without landline phones, and in any case those people don’t vote. I don’t buy that. Besides, I see young people, in their early 20s, walking down the street in Manchester wearing Obama t-shirts on days when no campaign event is scheduled. I havn’t seen that with any other candidate. Will they vote? Maybe, maybe not. But the evidence shows that Obama has broader support than is being picked up by the polls. So the polls must be wrong.
Comment from Jon Maltz in Hudson: “Wander into Murphy’s Tap Room and see how many Ron Paul shirts you see, on any random day of the week. You can’t tell me you don’t see people wearing Ron Paul shirts in Manchester.
“Dr. Paul wanted to boost his donations by $500k in online contributions during the last week of the quarter. After one day it went to $120k It’s at $375k the next day, with 4 days to go. Pretty good for a candidate the media makes every effort to ignore.”
ME: Well, I don’t spend a ton of time in Murphy’s, but I can tell you I don’t see a lot of Ron Paul T-shirts when I walk around. Just my personal experience, but I haven’t seen a lot of them.
Comment from Kevin Houston in Bridgewater: The Plain Old Telephone Surveys (POTS) are completely inaccurate, but not for the reasons that most people think.
The main reason they are inaccurate is that most voters have not really decided who they are voting for. They have not done their research yet, so when the pollsters call - they just go with whatever name sounds familar.
Look at Kerry’s POTS numbers in Dec 2003 (~ 4%) Yet after he won Iowa Caucuses, his POTS went up to 53%
How is it he won the Iowa Caucuses if he had only 4% support? And how did his numbers change so drastically nationwide after winning in IA?
Answer: the POTS are cooked.
Comment from lynn s. in Bigfork, Mont.: FINALLY, someone who gets it right!!
Now if you could just go onto Hardball and tell all of this to Chris loudmouth Matthews who insists the race is over.
Thank you for your awesome piece!
Comment from vw cat in Machesney Park: I have never voted in a primary nor has my husband. Actually, I don’t know anyone who has. I am 50. I support Barack Obama. It is not just the young who are supporting him. Many are older and have been sporatic voters for the presidential and non voters in the primaries.
On Obama’s site in the blogs many of us are over 30 and it’s our first primary, our first candidate we have donated to and the first politician we have been really excited about and determined to get elected. Before it was flip a coin as they were all about the same and caused as much excitement about supporting them as watching a fly land.
Barack Obama stirs something in people of all ages, races and ideologies. He has republicans, lifelong, reregistering as democrats just to vote for him in the primaries. their reason for switching and voting for Obama is as simple as they just like the guy. I personally think he makes them feel the same way Reagan did. Proud to be an American and of it’s leader and country.
A man who stirs that kind of feelings and causes this much deep and abiding support, especially in the face of the msm touting Hillary as inevitable and they are always talking negative about Obama while promoting Hillary on a daily basis. Yet, his supporters keep growing and his grassroots movement is massive.
You are the first reporter in print or air who actually is questioning the polls and the fact that Obama has a huge amount of supporters that are not ever going to get polled. the great unknowns. The great uncounted.
But, come primary day we will be known and heard.
