Major Garrett's Bourbon Room » Iraq

South Carolina Debate

Major Garrett — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:00:49 +0000

The debate’s ferocity set a new standard for Democratic combativeness.

What America saw tonight was all of the pent up opposition research from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards spill out on stage as if from a giant, perforated spleen at the Republican National Committee.

Already, Democrats with loyalties in this race and some who remain neutral have fretted to The Bourbon Room that the biggest winner tonight was the likely Republican nominee (Edwards said it would be John McCain). Yet other Democrats found the debate tense but mild when compared to Democratic campaigns of yore.

The debate will test what the campaigns have been unwilling to test on the airwaves — the effectiveness of direct, personal attacks on each other. Every perceived weakness came under assault and each candidate left the stage more bloodied than he or she arrived.

The debate’s greatest contribution was the time alloted for lengthy rebuttal. This gave the debate some of its most sizzling intensity and allowed for dramatic policy contrasts (such as on universal health care, trade and approaches to economic stimulus).

Winners and losers can’t be tabulated based solely on the debate performance.

If they could be, Edwards would again emerge as the clear winner. His crisp, passionate specificity again outshone Clinton and Obama. This is undoubtedly the kind of joust Edwards desperately needed in Iowa, where he still had a fighting chance to win the nomination. If this debate happened in Iowa, Edwards could have contrasted himself against the aggressively nagging and negative Obama-Clinton interplay that dominated the first hour of tonight’s debate (of course, this kind of debate would never have happened in Iowa which is always why Edwards never actually had a chance in this race).

Sadly for Edwards and his diminishing band of supporters, his performance tonight, while cogent, will probably most be remembered for providing either comedic relief or a welcome respite from the Clinton-Obama sniping. The debate could boost Edwards in South Carolina, but since he’s so far behind here it’s unlikely to propel him to victory.

The key question, then, is if Edwards rises who suffers? Clinton or Obama? The Bourbon Room surmises the votes will most likely come from Clinton.

And that’s not because Obama beat Clinton. I’d call their battle a draw on points. But if Edwards rises as a result of tonight’s strong performance, he will more likely take support from Clinton because the arc of the debate highlighted her deep ties to lobbyists, her support for the Iraq war and, in general, the exaggerated criticisms she or her husband have leveled at Obama. Also, on issues where the three did not argue – such as poverty, Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy, and Toni Morrison’s musings on the blackness of the Clinton presidency — Obama and Edwards were more confidently and naturally eloquent. Clinton didn’t stumble in these moments, but Obama and Edwards out-performed her.

Obama probably lost ground on health care because “universal” vs. “non-universal” polls off the charts with core Democrats (they want universal and, at bare minimum, the fight to START with the goal of universal coverage).

Clinton probably lost ground on Iraq and the stimulus. On the war, criticizing Obama for voting for war funds doesn’t make him a pro-war. Plenty of other anti-war liberals have voted to fund the troops fighting the war. That doesn’t make them pro-war. It makes them accountable to powerless volunteers who didn’t ask to fight the war, merely to have the equipment to prosecute it as best as they can. On economic stimulus, Clinton was first to unveil a comprehensive plan. But that plan did not highlight tax rebates. Hillary said they were held in reserve to avoid tempting congressional Republicans to reopen that debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. As Hillary must know, that was going to happen anyway. Also, many economists fear her call for a five-year freeze on mortgage loan interest rates will drive up the cost of future mortgages and thereby further delay any rebound in the housing market.

Edwards lost ground on trade and the bankruptcy bill, but since these issues are largely peripheral, the damage was less severe.

In summary, Edwards gained tonight. And since he and Obama sounded more like “change” than Hillary, his rise will probably take more from Clinton on Saturday than from Obama.

Obama held his own in the toe-to-toe fight with Clinton. The underdog, which Obama is nationally, always wins when the favorite hits hard and he doesn’t crumble. Also, Obama sounded more high notes among likely African American voters in South Carolina’s primary (where their turnout could easily exceed 50 percent) .

Clinton scored points but took several stylistic hits (drawing the occasional boo) and oddly acted as if Obama was more of a threat now than he was in Iowa or New Hampshire. She also appeared uncomfortable defending her husband’s recently aggressive line of attack on Obama (no one compares Bill Clinton to Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards in the surrogate wars).

In summary, Edwards gave his candidacy a boost. Obama took Clinton’s best shots and survived. Clinton acted as if she hadn’t won the last two contests and regained her aura of inevitability and combativeness suits the challenger better than the front-runner.

Net winner by a slim margin: Obama.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to Endorse Obama

Major Garrett — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:44:25 +0000

The Bourbon Room has learned from top Democratic sources that six-term U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a staunch defender of President Bill Clinton during the GOP-led impeachment, will endorse Barack Obama for president during an 11 a.m. EST conference call.

Leahy will appear on the conference call with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Leahy is the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and also led the fight against GOP efforts to delay and some cases deny confirmation of Clinton-nominated federal judges during the final two years of the Clinton presidency.

Leahy also opposed the Iraq war resolution and has been at the forefront of Democratic criticism of President Bush’s detention policies for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the Bush “terrorist surveillance” program.

Leahy also helped negotiate the first Patriot Act and was instrumental in reauthorizing the law with changes that reduced the federal government’s power to search library and personal records of American citizens implicated but not charged in terrorist investigations.

Elected in 1974, Leahy is Vermont’s longest serving senator and was among te first in the Senate to have an official website (launched in 1995) and in 2003 was the first senator to launch a personal blog “More from the floor.”

Nevada Debate Impressions, Volume 3

Major Garrett — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:13:04 +0000

Edwards admits he should not have voted for a 2001 “bankruptcy reform” bill. Clinton agrees but, unlike, Edwards points out the bill never became law — softening the blow of Russert’s question quoting a top consumer group describing Clinton’s vote as the “death knell” for pro-consumer bankruptcy reform. Clinton tries to push the debate to Nevada, saying blacks and latinos here are stressed by the mortgage meltdown. Obama rises above both by being the only one to say he opposed the 2001 bankruptcy bill in concept and voted against the 2005 bill while in the Senate. Obama said both were pushed “by the credit card companies” and his opposition grew out of skepticism of their motives and general unease with special interest power in D.C.

On mortgage crisis, Clinton deftly and confidently describes the components of her economic stimulus plan. She comes close as I can ever recall to reaching the heights of intellectual synergy her husband often achieved by combining policy specifics with real-world examples the average person can comprehend. This was by far Clinton’s best moment in the debate and, I imagine, swayed the minds of some undecided voters and probably came as reassuring music to the ears of slightly wavering Clinton supporters hungry to be reminded of why they were drawn to her in the first place.

On the ask-your-opponent segment, Clinton makes a transparent attempt to erase any distance between her and Obama on Iraq by asking him to embrace her legislation to challenge President Bush on Iraq benchmarks, troop deployments and permanent bases.

Obama agrees immediately, but underscores his long-standing opposition to the Iraq war, defying Clinton’s desire to minimize the distance between the two. On troop withdrawals, Clinton leans more aggressively toward withdrawing U.S. troops within a year, offering the caveat she always does that she will move “carefully and responsibly” but can move almost all out within a year. Edwards says he’s the only one to eliminate combat missions and eliminate any prospect of permanent military bases, calling the differences between himself and Obama and Clinton important and telling. Edwards said combat forces and military bases “continue the occupation” in Iraq. Obama says it’s important to keep the option of combat forces on the table to deal with potential Al Qaeda uprisings, but concedes Edwards point that a strike team might also be stationed in Kuwait to handle such operations. Since this issue has been so thoroughly vetted and appears to be falling behind the economy in the minds of most Democratic voters, this exchange will probably not move many votes.

Nevada Debate Impressions, Volume 2

Major Garrett — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:40:49 +0000

Debate appears bogged down on impressionistic themes — now nearly a half an hour in and the panel is still hashing out vague and largely personality-driven assessments of the candidates. This may be inevitable because of the sense that so much issue terrain has been covered by previous debates. It may also reflect how personal the race has become in the past week.

Clinton appears less-than-comfortable explaining her “false hopes’” line of attack against Obama and leaves it “up for the voters to decide” if Obama and Edwards are capable of being president. Obama also appeared bogged down having to explain his comments to the Reno Gazette-Journal newspaper that he wouldn’t be a chief operating officer type of president. He explained that he sees the job as largely about setting a tone, setting a course and creating a movement to pursue it.

Clinton immediately warmed up to the topic and scored a hard punch suggesting Obama was describing a hands-off approach to the presidency reminiscent of President Bush’s. Clinton said a president needed to set a course of action but also get knee-deep in the details. “I think you have to do both,” she declared crisply. Obama, sensing a successful strike from Clinton, denied he would bring a Bushian approach to the office. He promised a more intellectually curious and probing presidency, one that would not go to war in Iraq “without asking the tough questions” and thoroughly examining all the intelligence (pro and con). Thus Obama elevated his judgment argument on Iraq to parry Clinton’s jab on his leave-the-paper-pushing-to-someone-else view of the presidency. This exchange may prove among the most interesting to voters watching the debate. But here’s a prediction it won’t make it into many debate articles or TV summaries.

Clinton talks Iraq Withdrawal, hugs higher minimum wage

Major Garrett — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:23:34 +0000

Hillary Clinton highlighted her antiwar efforts and embraced John Edwards’ $9.50 minimum wage as her five-day Iowa blitz drew to a close, a clear signal camp Clinton needed to do more than hop-scotch across the state on a “Hil-a-copter” and dispatch surrogates statewide to tell tales of the “human side” of Hillary.

In Grundy City Thursday, Clinton talked up her Senate votes to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq within a year.

“In the Senate, I’ve been fighting the Bush administration to change course and end the war,” Clinton said. I have voted to complete the redeployment of our forces by December 2008. I have voted repeatedly against continuing to fund the war.”

In response to a question about timetables for withdrawal, Clinton said: “I think we can bring nearly everybody hom, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.”

These remarks left two campaigns – Edwards’ and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s – with the impression Clinton was now embracing a full U.S. pullout from Iraq by the end of next year. If so, it would represent a stark contrast with her oft-stated “safe and responsible” troop withdrawal goal that lacks a hard timetable. Not incidentally, the Edwards and Richardson camps see it as a massive position switch more in line with their long-standing calls for rapid Iraq troop withdrawals.

Of the two, only the Richardson campaign complained on the record.

“Senator Clinton’s statement that we could ‘certainly get all the troops out within a year’ is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along,” Richardson said in a statement. “She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

“In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it.”

Clinton’s camp says there no change in her position.

“Governor Richardson knows that Senator Clinton has been clear and consistent: if George Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, she will,” campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. “As she has said, she would accomplish that by beginning to withdrawal our troops within 60 days after inauguration at the rate of one or two brigades a month. This would mean that nearly all troops could be home within a year.”

Clinton aides say she has not and will not abandon the belief that a “small contingent” of U.S. combat troops would need to remain in Iraq to guard against a resurgent Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

On the minimum wage, Clinton has now proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and dropped that bill just before Congress adjourned for the year. This last-minute legislative move strongly signals Clinton feels the need to shore up support among working-class Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire – households that once formed a core part of her base.

Edwards welcomed Clinton’s pre-Christmas embrace of a $9.50 wage threshold, something that for five months he’s called on all Democratic presidential candidates to embrace.

“Just 14 days before the Iowa caucuses, Senator Clinton has answered my call,” Edwards said in a statement. “But changing America demands all of us do even more. In this spirit, I hope she will join me in rejecting the money of Washington lobbyists that is corrupting our system and hurting middle-class families.”

As for Barack Obama, he hasn’t set a target number for the minimum wage. He has advocated indexing increases in the minimum wage to inflation. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton says that approach would increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour “as fast” as Edwards and now Clinton propose.

Poll tidbits: The New Gallup/USA Today poll today shows Obama and Clinton tied at 32 percent with Edwards at 18 percent. In four of six of the most recent New Hampshire polls, Clinton has lead with margins from 3 points to 14 points. Also, today’s new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa shows Obama at 30 percent and Clinton and Edwards tied at 27 percent.

Reading between the line in the polls. Edwards announced this morning that uniquely among top-tier Democrats he will be in New Hampshire — NOT IOWA — the day after Christmas for events in Conway, Laconia, Manchester and Salem. This indicates Edwards sees a real chance to win in Iowa and doesn’t want to neglect New Hampshire so he can capitalize on a possible Iowa victory. Of course, with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, Edwards can dominate the New Hampshire media market. But if Edwards were feeling uneasy about the must-win state of Iowa, he wouldn’t dare venture to New Hampshire and leave the Iowa media market to Clinton and Obama.

In a release, Edwards touts 80 paid staff in the Granite State, “eight times the field organizers it had on the ground during the 2003-2004 cycle.” Edwards says he can compete with “anyone’s” field operation in New Hampshire. It’s worth noting that while the Obama-Clinton battle in New Hampshire has ebbed and flowed, one constant in the polls has been a slow Edwards climb since mid-November from the low teens to the high teens. Still, he has yet to break 20 and probably needs to cross that threshold before the caucuses — which may be another reason to hit New Hampshire on Boxing Day.