John Dickerson asked this to Donald Trump on Face the Nation yesterday:
TRUMP: At the debate, you talked about H-1B visas. You said: "It's something I, frankly, use, and I shouldn't be allowed to use it." When you have talked about the bankruptcy laws, you talk about how you took advantage of them. When you and I talked about your taxes, you say you try and pay as little as possible. If you are president, why would anybody follow the laws that you put in place if they knew you were taking advantage of those laws when you were in the private sector?
(That's from the transcript. You can see it in the middle of this video, starting at 5:18 — click the slider at the bottom of the video, a little more than half of the way through the interview.)
I asked John Dickerson about this on Facebook (he hasn't responded to me) (UPDATE: see the end of this post for his response):
Trump claims that he followed the laws, and used them to his business advantage; he hasn't said he violated any laws. How is that inconsistent with the assumption that people will "follow the laws that [he] put[s] in place" when he's president? Presumably he'd to try to improve the laws, leading to better results when businesspeople followed them in a way that worked to their advantage (as businesspeople can always be expected to do).
My mom, Ann Althouse, made the same point (and we hadn't discussed this with each other or seen each other's comments when we separately pointed this out):
What's Dickerson trying to say, that taxpayers should pay more than they owe? That businesspersons shouldn't understand the law, see what's to their advantage, and structure their transactions efficiently? Why wouldn't voters trust a businessperson who followed the law and figured out how to use it? Don't we want someone knowledgeable and competent? We're supposed to prefer someone who's so intimidated by law that he wastes money? Is Dickerson a fool or is he just trying to manipulate viewers into thinking ill of Trump?
Here was Trump's response, with an odd interjection from Dickerson:
TRUMP: Because I know the game better than anybody, because I have been on the other side. I have built one of the greatest companies. I did a filing which shows one of the great companies, great assets, very little debt, tremendous cash flow, some of the greatest assets in the world. But let me just tell you, I use the bankruptcy laws just like other very successful people. I don't [want] to use their names, but I could name 10 people right now, the biggest people in all of business. We do it. It's the game we play. We use the laws of the land.
DICKERSON: But why wouldn't people keep playing . . .
TRUMP: We use it. And that's the way we play the game. Wait a minute. As far as the visas are concerned, I'm not doing anything wrong. I think the -- those visas shouldn't be allowed. But they are allowed. They are part of the fabric of what you do. So, I'll use it. I mean, I'm a businessman. Now that I have turned politician -- I hate to say that, almost, about myself -- but now that I'm running for office, I know the game better than anybody. I'm the one that can fix all of this stuff. But when you start talking about -- I never went bankrupt. I never went bankrupt. You understand I never went bankrupt. But you take a look at the business leaders. Every once in a while -- I have 500 companies. I have so many different companies. And a very few, I will take advantage of -- frankly, by using the laws of the land, as every other major businessperson does.
My mom points out that Dickerson's follow-up was "weirdly obtuse":
"But why wouldn't people keep playing?" There's nothing wrong with "playing." The key is to put the right rules and regulations in place and then to enforce them. If you don't like what people are doing when they are following the law, then something's wrong with the law, not with the people who are finding effective ways to compete.
I don't see Trump as fomenting disrespect for the law. It's more the opposite. The law matters. Get it right. People using the law to their selfish advantage may reveal what's wrong with the law, and Trump is offering his services, as an expert player, in seeing and fixing the flaws so that the game produces a result that is in the general interest of the American people. There may be reasons not to trust him (and there are surely reasons to mistrust those who've played the law game from positions in government), but his use of the law isn't a good reason.
My mom notes that she's in the legal field and she found Dickerson's question "very weird." I'm also in the legal field and had the same reaction. If a journalist as prominent as Dickerson, the host of one of the Sunday morning political shows, saw fit to ask this on the air, how much similar confusion about law, policy, and business is out there among the general public?
UPDATE: John Dickerson has responded to my question on Facebook:
Good question. What I was trying to get at is where is he on the question of gaming the laws and abiding by them. Does he think laws exist to be maneuvered around and taken advantage of? In the case of companies like Apple and others he makes a moral objection to their taking advantage of tax and trade laws. But in his own business he says he plays every game he can even when he acknowledges (as he did with H1B visas) that it's a bad thing to do. (He's under investigation both for his use H1B visas and his tax filings) So what I was trying to get at is whether he expects everyone to game the system when he's trying to make the system better or whether he expected a different standard than the one he uses once he's on the other side-- since his view of standards is a moving target. (For example, he campaigns against foreign workers taking jobs but hires them; campaigns against foreign made goods but makes them). So where's' the line? How does he draw it? How will he draw those lines when he's president. He offered a lot of that in his answer. The point is to excavate his reasoning. The reason I asked about his event with Dr. Carson is that it's part of the same inquiry: what guides your behavior? Is politics a system to be gamed? Seems like a lot of people are upset about politics being turned into a game this election cycle. As the candidate who has achieved a special status because voters think he tells unique truths, how can he say something seemingly true one minute and then say oh that wasn't true it was just politics the next minute. There's no law against doing that. He's just playing the game. But I keep hearing that people are tired of the game playing. Also, it seems like a pretty shifting set of standards-- and campaigns are about whether what you're saying will still be true once you're elected. So why, if his standards are shifting now, should people not think he'll shift his standards when he gets into office. Nothing will be there to bind him in many cases but his personal set of standards. Thanks for asking!
As I said in reply to Dickerson on Facebook: He keeps referring to Trump "gaming the laws," "maneuver[ing]," "tak[ing] advantage of" the laws, etc. Those terms might sound vaguely nefarious, but the bottom line is that they all seem to refer to a businessperson following the law. If the consequences of businesspeople following the law are bad, then the law should be changed. So I fail to see a contradiction, or even a tension, between what Trump says about what he's done as a businessperson and his stance that he'd improve the laws and the economy as president. After all, his argument is not that he expects businesses to suddenly act in the country's best interests out of the goodness of their hearts. His argument is that he knows firsthand, from decades of experience, what it's like to do business under a lot of laws and regulations, and he has ideas for improving those laws to get better economic results. That's all under the assumption that people who run successful businesses, who are advised by lawyers and financial advisors, will always work hard to do whatever they think will advantage themselves under the existing law.
I'll be live-blogging the debate here. Keep reloading for more updates.
This is the first Democratic debate after Biden announced he wasn't running, and after three candidates dropped out. There are only three candidates, so no one should need to complain about not having enough time in this two-hour debate.
As always, I'll be writing down quotes as I hear them, so they might not be verbatim, but I'll try to keep them reasonably accurate.
9:06 — First, each candidate is asked for their thoughts on the attacks on Paris yesterday. Sanders vows to "rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS."
9:08 — Hillary Clinton denounces the "radical jihadist ideology" of ISIS, a "terrorist group." The use of the word "jihadist" seems to mark a shift from President Obama, who shies away from referring to the Islamic nature of Islamic terrorism.
9:10 — Clinton is asked if Obama underestimated the threat posed by ISIS. Clinton fails to answer the question, and instead makes her standard points about ISIS and terrorism. The moderator calls her out on this, and asks the same question again. [VIDEO.]
9:13 — Martin O'Malley takes a hawkish tone, calling ISIS "evil" and saying "this is America's fight," though "not only America's fight." [Added later: O'Malley was responding to Clinton's repeated statement that "this cannot be an American fight." However, she added: "American leadership is essential."]
9:13 — Sanders is asked if he still believes climate change is the greatest threat in the world. He says yes — in fact, climate change leads to terrorism. [VIDEO.]
9:14 — Sanders and O'Malley both criticize Clinton for understating America's responsibility to defeat ISIS.
9:15 — Sanders notes that Clinton voted for the Iraq War, which led to ISIS.
9:16 — Clinton defends herself with a long-winded and confusing historical account going back to the '90s. As I understand it, she's basically emphasizing that terrorism was a serious problem well before the Iraq War — but how should that allay any Democratic voters' concerns that her vote to authorize the Iraq War made things worse rather than better?
9:17 — Sanders calls himself "more conservative than the Secretary" on "regime change" — meaning he's more cautious and aware of the unintended consequences. [VIDEO.]
9:21 — The moderator, John Dickerson, points out that Clinton "championed" Obama's invasion of Libya, and quotes Obama saying he learned from Libya that it's important to think in advance about what happens "the day after." Dickerson asks: shouldn't that lesson already have been learned by then,from the Iraq War?
9:23 — O'Malley is asked about his lack of foreign-policy experience. He says: "We are not so good at appreciating threats and building up stable democracies." He also talks about a mom who urged him not to use the phrase "boots on the ground" because she felt her son was diminished by the metonymy. (Of course, he didn't use the word "metonymy.")
9:26 — Clinton is asked if she agrees with Marco Rubio's statement that we're "at war with radical Islam." Clinton dodges the question by saying "we're not at war with all Muslims." As the moderator points out, that isn't what Rubio said — Rubio limited his statement to radical Islam. Clinton praises President Bush for speaking appropriately about this sensitive topic in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. [VIDEO.]
9:27 — Clinton is asked if we need to "understand" ISIS. This is a politically tricky question, but she gives a clever response: she first says it's "very difficult to put ourselves in their shoes," but then proceeds to do just that by describing ISIS's worldview as one of "nihilism," "a lust for power," and "rejection of modernity and human rights." [Added later:] I'm struck by how Clinton went straight for the hawkish view of ISIS (they're just a bunch of nihilistic, backward people who crave power), and passed up the opportunity to urge us to have a greater understanding of the "root causes" of terrorism. Clinton sounded much like the conservative Charles Krauthammer, writing in the month after the September 11 attacks:
It turns out that the enemy does have recognizable analogues in the Western experience. He is, as President Bush averred in his address to the nation, heir to the malignant ideologies of the 20th century. In its nihilism [the same word used by Clinton], its will to power [similar to the "lust for power" mentioned by Clinton], its celebration of blood and death, its craving for the cleansing purity that comes only from eradicating life and culture, radical Islam is heir, above all, to Nazism. The destruction of the World Trade Center was meant not only to wreak terror. Like the smashing of the Bamiyan Buddhas [in Afghanistan earlier in 2001], it was meant to obliterate greatness and beauty, elegance and grace. These artifacts represented civilization embodied in stone or steel. They had to be destroyed [that would be an example of the "rejection of modernity," as Clinton put it].
9:28 — O'Malley says our Muslim American "neighbors" are not our "enemies" — "they are our first line of defense."
9:33 — Clinton says she supports taking in 65,000 Syrian refugees. Of course, she says we should have a "careful" screening process to "prevent people who wish to do us harm from coming into our country." (Easier said than done.)
9:42 — Sanders is asked how high he'd raise taxes. He doesn't have an "exact number," but it will be lower than the highest rate under President Eisenhower — "I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower!" [VIDEO.]
9:44 — Clinton vows to "defend" Obamacare, in contrast with Republicans, who will tear it up and throw us back into a "contentious debate" about health care. She says she disagrees with Sanders on health care, but Sanders retorts that he was on the committee that drafted Obamacare.
9:46 — Sanders says we need to "end the national embarrassment of being the only advanced country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege."
9:51 — O'Malley says that net immigration in the past year was "zero." He blatantly pleads for media attention: "Go ahead, fact-check me!" (Clinton says he's "basically" right.) [Update: The Washington Post's Fact Checker obliged.]
9:53 — Sanders is asked how much "job loss" he'd find an "acceptable" consequence of raising the minimum wage. Sanders vaguely acknowledges that any policy will have some negative consequences, but he'll "apologize to nobody" for supporting an increase to $15 an hour. For some reason, he suggests that this will especially help to reduce unemployment among black youths.
9:56 — O'Malley is asked why he raised Maryland's minimum wage only to $10.10, when he now calls for increasing the whole country's minimum wage to $15.
9:56 — Clinton admits that "there are no international comparisons" to what would happen if we raised the minimum wage to $15, so she only supports raising it to $12, which "would be the highest above the historical average we've ever had."
10:02 — Clinton is asked how she can rein in Wall Street when she's "indebted" to so many people on Wall Street since they've donated so much money to her. Clinton says this is obvious from the fact that two "billionaire hedge fund managers" have been putting out attack ads against her. Sanders says Clinton's answer is "not good enough," and asks why Wall Street has been such a "major contributor" to Clinton. "Maybe they're dumb! But I don't think so." [VIDEO.]
10:05 — Things really heat up between Clinton and Sanders over Clinton's connections to Wall Street. Clinton says: "He has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity." Sanders protests: "No I have not!" Clinton presses on: "Oh, wait a minute here . . ." She adds that Sanders's plan of "breaking up the big banks" is "not enough." Sanders seems like he's trying to turn down the heat: "I respectfully disagree with you, Madam Secretary." [VIDEO.]
10:08 — O'Malley repeatedly says, very slowly and emphatically, that Clinton's proposal on Wall Street is "weak tea."
10:09 — As in the last debate, Clinton seems to be trying to minimize any apparent difference between herself and the other candidates on financial regulations: "If the big banks don't play by the rules, I will break them up."
10:10 — Sanders says, in a thinly veiled swipe at Clinton: "Here's my promise: Wall Street representatives will not be in my cabinet."
10:11 — Clinton repeats what she said in the last debate about her disagreement with Sanders about lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The moderator shoots back: "If he can be tattooed by one vote . . . why can't you be tattooed by your vote on Iraq?" Clinton frankly admits: "I made a mistake on Iraq."
10:13 — On gun control, Sanders says, "I don't know that there's any disagreement here," and both of the other candidates laugh at him.
10:14 — O'Malley goes after Clinton on gun control: "You've been on three sides of this." She was for gun regulations at first, but then "painted [her]self as Annie Oakley, saying we don't need regulations at the federal level." Sanders tries to take the rug out from under O'Malley with the understatement that Baltimore, of which O'Malley was mayor, is "not the safest city in America."
10:16 — A viewer asks Clinton why she invoked "9/11" to defend against Sanders's charges of being too close to Wall Street. Clinton seems to suggest that the viewer misunderstood. (Well, I didn't understand Clinton's point either.)
I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country. [VIDEO.]
My dad worked in WTC from the day it was built to the day it went down. @HillaryClinton, never invoke 9/11 to justify your Wall St positions
10:17 — Clinton says some stuff that I didn't catch about Glass-Steagall. She admits it's an "arcane" discussion, and I think she knows that talk of "Glass-Steagall" doesn't mean much to most viewers, especially when no one bothers to explain it. Even Ben Bernanke, the former chair of the Federal Reserve, doesn't understand why there's so much focus on it in the debates! I don't know if the candidates are even thinking about the fact that some of their viewers who will be eligible to vote in 2016 are teenagers; Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, when they were babies.
10:25 — Sanders is asked about the apparent discrepancy between his statement in the last debate that he was "sick and tired" of hearing about Clinton's emails, and his later comments, but Sanders brushes this off as a media invention. We get a sequel to the Sanders/Clinton love-fest from the last debate, with Sanders saying: "I didn't know that I had so much power! We don't hear much about her emails anymore! . . . We've gotten off of Clinton's emails — good!" Clinton: "I couldn't have said it better myself!"
10:27 — Clinton: "President Obama deserves more credit than he's gotten for what he got done in Washington, despite Republican obstructionism."
10:28 — Dickerson brings up her recent congressional testimony on Benghazi, and asks if she can assure us the "other shoe isn't going to drop." Clinton: "I think after 11 hours, that's pretty clear!"
10:30 — When O'Malley is asked about criminal justice reform, he says he has more "graveside" experience than the other candidates.
10:32 — Sanders calls to "end minimum sentencing" and legalize marijuana at the federal level, so states can be free to legalize it.
10:35 — Sanders is asked why government should pay for tuition, when about 40% of college students don't graduate. Isn't the taxpayer money just "thrown away" on them? Sanders doesn't answer that question, but simply reiterates his support for "free" college (to the extent anything that would cost billions of dollars can be called "free").
10:38— Clinton: "I disagree with free college for everybody." Her rationale is that taxpayers should have to "send Donald Trump's kids to college." (Of course, Trump's kids went to private colleges, which wouldn't be affected by Sanders's plan.) Government and families should both "contribute."
10:40 — The moderator points out that Clinton's health-care plan back when she was First Lady was "Sanders-esque." Clinton seems wistful: "Revolution never came! . . . I have the scars to prove it!"
10:42 — As the moderator is starting to go to a commercial break, O'Malley begs for more time, but Dickerson blames it on technology: "I'm sorry, Governor, we've got to take a break, or the machine breaks down!" [Update: Out of the three candidates, O'Malley spoke the least — 25% of the time — and Clinton spoke the most — 40% of the time.]
10:46 — The candidates are all asked about "a time you've been tested," which they could draw on as president. Clinton says the time she had to advise Obama on the mission to kill bin Laden. Clinton gets personal: "It was an excruciating experience — I couldn't talk to anybody about it," including her husband. Sanders's answer is pretty dull by comparison: he says he'd draw on his experience compromising with Republicans when he was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
10:51 — In his closing statement, O'Malley says we shouldn't return to "polarizing figures of the past." I can't imagine who he has in mind!
10:52 — Clinton starts her closing statement with a good line: "I've heard a lot about me in this debate. I'm going to keep talking and thinking about you." At the end of her statement, she gets wild applause.
10:54 — Sanders's closing statement is evocative of Larry David's impersonation of him: "We need a political revolution! . . . Turn off the TV! . . . Please become a part of the revolution!"
O'Malley successfully baited Trump into giving him some much-needed publicity.
I'll be live-blogging the debate here. Keep reloading for more updates.
As always, I'll be quoting the candidates on the fly, but I'll try to keep the quotes reasonably accurate. (I might go back and tweak some of the quotes later, but if you need an exact quote, please don't rely on this post — check the transcript.)
It's easy to say that tonight will be all about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. But even if you're sure that Martin O'Malley, Jim Web, and Lincoln Chafee can't win the nomination, they could still have an impact tonight.
As Bill Scher has pointed out, a pivotal moment in the 2008 Democratic primaries was prompted by a candidate who never had a serious chance: Chris Dodd.
[On] October 30, 2007, when the Democrats debated in Philadelphia[,] Clinton was the front-runner then, too, and it was the thirteenth time the candidates had met. But it was also, arguably, the first time that her opponents—Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, and, most improbably, Barack Obama—seriously challenged her, on all fronts. Edwards accused her of “doubletalk.” Obama called her out for “changing positions whenever it’s politically convenient”—she was “for NAFTA previously, now she’s against it”—and for not being “truthful.” A lot of the time was taken up asking why records of her official work in her husband’s White House were sealed in the Clinton Presidential library. She responded with what must have been intended as judiciousness but came across as obfuscation. When Tim Russert, one of the moderators, tried to determine whether she was in favor of issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants—she had indicated both yes and no—she called his question a “gotcha.”
In the days that followed, Clinton and her campaign tried to frame the debate as a Hillary-against-the-world moment, a “pile-on,” orchestrated by what she called, in a speech at Wellesley College, “the all-boys’ club.” Clinton had been considered the winner in most of the previous debates, and even many of her supporters acknowledged that this one marked a turning point. A week before, she was at 48.5 per cent in an average of polls, the highest she had ever been. (Obama registered 21.2.) Immediately afterward, she began a decline and, despite some rebounds, never matched that number again.
As you can see in this video, Dodd wasn't the only one going after Clinton on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants, but he was the firstcandidate to seize on it. Obama and Edwards then picked up on Dodd's cue and added to the criticism of Clinton for being unclear and trying to have it both ways. No one expected drivers' licenses to be a significant issue in the election before that night, but those five minutes were arguably the beginning of the end for the Clinton campaign.
8:41 — Sheryl Crow does a weak rendition of the national anthem.
8:49 — Lincoln Chafee notes, in his opening statement, that he's the only candidate who's been a mayor, a governor, and a Senator. Also: "I have had no scandals!" (Unlike some candidates!)
8:51 — Jim Webb emphasizes that "more than half of [his] professional life" has been outside politics (as a novelist, journalist, and businessperson).
8:52 — Webb vividly describes his family members, including his wife, who immigrated here from Vietnam and learned English, a language that wasn't spoken at home when she was growing up, and eventually went to my alma mater, Cornell Law School.
8:53 — Martin O'Malley's opening strikes a humble note: "There are some things in life I've learned how to do better than others. . . ."
8:55 — Bernie Sanders uses his opening to attack the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United for giving undue influence to "millionaires and billionaires." He also notes that "African-American youth unemployment is 51%." Instead of "providing more jails and more incarceration," Sanders would raise the minimum wage, further increasing African-American youth unemployment.
8:59 — Hillary Clinton starts out talking about how she's been "traveling across the country, . . . listening and learning." And: "Yes, finally, fathers will be able to say to their daughters: you too can grow up to be President."
9:01 — Anderson Cooper asks Clinton about her flip-flops on gay rights, trade, and other issues. "Will you say anything just to get elected?" She claims to have been "very consistent" throughout her life — "but I do absorb new information." On President Obama's trade deal: "I wanted to make sure I could look in the eyes of American families and say this will raise your wages, and I concluded I could not."
9:03 — Cooper asks Clinton: "Just for the record, are you a progressive or a moderate"? "I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive who likes to get things done."
9:04 — Sanders is asked how he can win as a "democratic socialist." He says this can work as long as he educates the public on "what democratic socialism means," including: "It is immoral and wrong that the top tenth of the top 1% own as much as the bottom 90%." Sanders invokes Denmark, and Cooper shoots back that it has a population of just a few million.
9:06 — Cooper asks Sanders if he's a capitalist. "Do I consider myself a part of the casino-capitalist process? . . . No, I don't." Cooper opens up the question to the other candidates, and Clinton says we need to "save capitalism from itself," to "rein in the excesses of capitalism so it doesn't run amok." "But," Clinton adds pointedly, "we are not Denmark," and we need to support small businesses, which she does associate with capitalism.
9:08 — Cooper asks Chafee how Democrats can trust him — "you've only been a Democrat for two years." Chafee: "You're looking at a block of granite on the issues." Cooper retorts: "It's pretty soft granite!" Why did Chafee switch parties? "The party left me! There was no room left for a liberal, moderate Republican."
9:09 — Cooper asks O'Malley about the unrest in Baltimore, which he led as mayor and governor. "We saved over 1,000 lives in Baltimore over 15 years, and most of them were young and black." [VIDEO.]
9:11 — Webb is asked about his position on affirmative action — isn't he out of step with the party? He says no, and clarifies that he has "always been in favor of affirmative action for African-Americans." He's against affirmative action being applied to "everyone but whites, including poor Appalachian whites."
9:13 — Cooper asks Sanders about his record on gun control. He responds in the third person: "Bernie Sanders has a D- rating from the NRA."
9:15 — Clinton is asked whether Sanders is "tough enough on guns." She directly attacks Sanders: "No. Not at all. . . . Senator Sanders did vote 5 times against the Brady Bill." After Sanders defended himself on the ground that a bill protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits was complicated, Clinton says it was "not that complicated."
9:17 — O'Malley seethes with anger as he tells the story of the family of a woman who died in the Aurora shooting, who tried to sue the gun manufacturer. As O'Malley joins in Clinton's attack on Sanders, Clinton repeatedly nods her head with determination. O'Malley one-ups Sanders by touting his "F from the NRA," and accusing Sanders of "pandering to the NRA."
9:19 — Cooper points out that Webb has an "A rating from the NRA!" He doesn't back away from his support of gun rights: "The average American," who doesn't get free bodyguards, "deserves the right to protect their family."
9:23 — Clinton says it's "unacceptable" for Russia to be "bombing people on behalf of Assad." But isn't that [partly] a euphemism for bombing ISIL? [I added the word "partly" and the link afterwards, based on a comment.]
9:24 — Sanders calls the Iraq War the worst foreign-policy decision in American history (or one of the worst — didn't catch that). Clinton chimes in that no one on the stage supports the war. (Of course, she voted to authorize the war but eventually said she regretted it.)
9:24 — Clinton cleverly notes that she was at about 25 debates 8 years ago in which she and Obama went back and forth on Iraq — but after all that, "President Obama asked me to be Secretary of State. He valued my judgment." [VIDEO.]
9:28 — Sanders is asked when he would support military action. "I voted to make sure that Osama bin Laden was held accountable in Afghanistan." He also voted for the Kosovo War.
9:31 — As a question goes to Clinton, Webb complains that he hasn't gotten a question in a while. Clinton brushes him off: "Well, I am in the middle here! Lots of things coming at me from all directions!"
9:33 — Webb tells us, for the second time, that he fought in Vietnam and his son fought in Iraq. [He later brings up his Vietnam service for a third time.] How well has the "I'm a veteran" pitch worked for presidential candidates in the past? Just ask President Wesley Clark, President Kerry, President McCain, President Dole . . .
9:34 — Sanders on Russia and Syria: "I think Putin is going to regret what he is doing." Cooper: "He doesn't seem to be the type of guy to regret a lot."
9:38 — Webb comes out strongly against Obama's war in Libya: "It's not about Benghazi per se, but about the decisions that allowed Benghazi to happen. There were no treaties at risk, no Americans at risk, no attack or threat of attack."
9:39 — Sanders is asked how he could be Commander in Chief after he applied for "conscientious objector" status during the Vietnam War. "When I was a young man — I'm not a young man today — I strongly opposed the Vietnam War. . . . I am not a pacifist." [VIDEO.]
9:42 — Every candidate is asked what the greatest threat to the US is. Clinton says nuclear weapons being obtained by terrorists. Sanders says climate change.
9:46 — Cooper brings up Clinton's emails. "You dismissed it. You joked about it. You called it a mistake. What does that say about your ability to handle far more pressing responsibilities as President?" She attacks the House Committee that's soon going to hear her testimony about the emails as "partisan." "I think it's pretty clear what their obvious goal is. So I'll be there, I'll testify. But tonight, I want to talk not about my emails but about [the issues]."
9:49 — Sanders refuses to turn Clinton's emails into an issue: "Secretary Clinton is right. The American people are tired of hearing about your damn emails!" Clinton: "Me too!" She reaches over to shake his hand: "Thank you, Bernie! Thank you!" [VIDEO.]
9:50 — Chafee attacks Clinton over the emails. Cooper asks: "Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?" "No!"
9:52 — An audience member asks: "Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?" Why are those mutually exclusive?
9:54 — Clinton says we need to "tackle mass incarceration" — which might be "the only bipartisan issue this year." "We need a new New Deal for communities of color and the poor."
9:55 — Webb: "I risked my political life raising the issue of criminal justice reform."
9:58 — Cooper to Clinton: "You and your husband are part of the 1%. How can you represent the views of the middle class?" She reminds us that they didn't start out rich, then pivots from the personal to the political: "The economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House."
10:00 — Clinton is asked about how she doesn't want to "break up the big banks," as Sanders does. Clinton says her plan is "tougher," and would actually "empower regulators to break up big banks if . . . they posed a risk."
10:01 — Sanders says he "fought" "the Clinton administration" on financial regulations. Clinton comes back that she went to Wall Street in 2007, before the crash, and said, "Cut it out!" Bernie laughs and shakes his head while she's speaking, and once she's done, he tells her: "Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress."
10:07 — Webb complains again about not getting enough time. Cooper: "You agreed to these rules, and you're wasting your time!"
10:08 — Chafee is asked about his vote on Glass-Steagall in 1999. Chafee's pathetic excuse: "I had just arrived in the Senate!" Cooper: "What does it say about you that you were casting a vote about something you weren't sure about?"
10:18 — Clinton supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. O'Malley agrees and presents this as a contrast with "Donald Trump, that carnival barker."
10:21 — Clinton says she doesn't regret her vote for the Patriot Act. "It was necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that we needed." She says Bush's warrantless surveillance went too far, but doesn't comment on Obama's warrantless surveillance.
10:23 — Chafee on Edward Snowden: "I would bring him home. A federal court ruled that what the government did was illegal." Clinton disagrees: "He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistle-blower. . . . I don't think he should be brought home without facing the music." Sanders splits the difference: Snowden was a hero, but he should also face consequences for breaking the law. Webb, when given the chance to talk (as he keeps begging for), takes no position on Snowden.
10:25 — Chafee says: "We need a new paradigm in the Middle East." He calls out the Obama administration for bombing a hospital and using drone strikes on a wedding. I like his message, but he's not a strong messenger.
10:26 — Clinton is asked how she'd be different from President Obama: "I think that's pretty obvious! I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we've had up to this point!"
10:28 — Webb tries to tamp down the excitement over Sanders and his ambitious proposals: "I don't think the revolution is gonna come, and I don't think Congress is gonna pay for all this stuff."
10:29 — Cooper gives a teaser for the next round after the commercial break: "Some of the candidates have smoked marijuana, as has probably everybody in this room! Has it influenced their views on legalization?"
10:34 – Cooper says he's glad to see all of the candidates "back" after the commercial break, and says he's particularly glad to see Clinton back. Clinton, seeming out of breath, says: "You know, it does take me a little longer!"
10:36 — "I certainly am not campaigning to be president because my last name is Clinton."
10:37 — Sanders, in what's surely a gross exaggeration, says: "I am the only candidate running for president who's not a billionaire."
10:38 — On the environment, Cooper again asks Webb if he's out of step with his party.
10:41 — Clinton: "Literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese!" (Poor word choice!) "They told us they were going to the airport. We found out that they were having a secret meeting." [Added later: This is what she was talking about. This is what people pictured. Was this Clinton's "binders full of women" moment?]
10:43 — The candidates all talk about their support for paid family leave.
10:45 — Sanders says he "suspect[s]" he would vote for a Nevada referendum to legalize marijuana, if he lived in Nevada. (The moderator notes that he's admitted to smoking marijuana, but only twice.)
10:46 — Clinton says she supports medical marijuana but doesn't yet support legalizing recreational marijuana. (The moderator notes that she's denied ever doing it.)
10:53 — All the candidates are asked which "enemy" they're most proud to have made. Clinton's answer: "Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians, . . . probably the Republicans."
10:59 — O'Malley uses his closing statement to give evidence that America is on a progressive path: "Talk to Americans under 30, and you will never hear people who want to deny rights to gay people or bash immigrants."
11:02 — Hillary Clinton closes the evening with a statement reminiscent of Bill Clinton: "If you work hard and you do your part, you should be able to get ahead. . . . America's best days are ahead of us."
Anyone see an opening for Joe Biden after this debate?
I think things are easier for Biden now, because the question of why he should be running (rather than standing back to let Clinton glide smoothly to the presidency) no longer seems like such a big deal, after we've seen 4 other candidates all challenging her while standing right by her.
And while Clinton was very strong tonight, we already knew from 2008 that both Clinton and Biden are skilled at debating. This debate showed that Clinton has no strong challenger, which strengthens the rationale for Biden stepping in.
On the whole, Hillary tried to appeal to people's heads, with the knowledge that Bernie would have their hearts. Overall I think she did very well -- articulate, knowledgeable, and didn't allow Sanders -- or the audience -- to pull her too far to the left.
My verdict:
Winners: Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Anderson Cooper
Losers: Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Sheryl Crow
UPDATE: I originally called Sanders a "wash," but I'm moving him to the "losers" category. He didn't do much to win more support from the left than he already had; he was wounded on guns; and I can see many progressives who had been tentatively supporting him realizing that Clinton is the more sensible choice.
If [Joe Biden] does decide to jump in the race, there will be one critical question for which he doesn’t quite have an answer: Why are you running?
Well, let's look at Hillary Clinton's answer to the question:
I'm running to be the champion for Americans and their families, so that we can not just worry about treading water, but you can get ahead and you can stay ahead.
I'm sure Biden and his staff can write an answer at least as convincing as that.
Biden is no political novice — he was a Senator for decades, ran for president twice, and has been vice president for almost a full two terms. He's going to anticipate the "Why are you running?" question, and he'll have an answer that sounds good. It'll be entirely positive — focused on how his experience, policies, and principles will allow him to tackle the challenges facing the country. There's no way he's going to say that the reason he's running is that he noticed Hillary Clinton's poll numbers have been dropping, she's become surprisingly vulnerable, and none of the other candidates are viable. People think of Biden as a bumbling gaffe machine, but they forget that he was outstanding in the 2008 primary debates. So I don't think this one question is going to hold him back from running.
