Forensic Fireworks at Soldier Field

Political reporters across the country should have been deleting any pre-written lede they may have had about pandering to a core Democratic constituency tonight as repeated clashes in the AFL-CIO sponsored debate in front of a live audience of seventeen thousand at Soldier Field signaled a shift in the dynamics of the Democratic presidential nomination race.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Political reporters across the country should have been deleting any pre-written lede they may have had about pandering to a core Democratic constituency tonight as repeated clashes in the AFL-CIO sponsored debate in front of a live audience of seventeen thousand at Soldier Field signaled a shift in the dynamics of the Democratic presidential nomination race. Keith Olbermann moderated and questioners included labor union members as well as other members who submitted their questions via the internet.

The seven candidates, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, did largely agree with one another on issues like trade, China, and infrastructure jobs. But a three-front war developed as questions of foreign policy and campaign finance spilled over from last week's campaigning and the YearlyKos debate, and a new front was opened as John Edwards's pro-labor and populist bona fides were questioned with substantive evidence instead of cracks about haircuts and house. The exchanges revealed shifting alliances and emerging fissures within the field.

Barack Obama and John Edwards used arguments about the role of lobbyist contributions in campaign finances to double team Hillary Clinton. No one rose to her defense although the attack could equally apply to Biden, Dodd, and Richardson. Barack Obama's positions were at the center of the foreign policy debate. He attacked Dodd and Clinton for their criticism of his policy on fighting Al Qaeda in northwest Pakistan and questioned the judgment of all of those who voted to authorize the Iraq war. The attack on Edwards was led by Biden who argued that the record shows that Edwards's pro-labor stance is a recent invention. All of the other candidates cited decades-long support for unions.

Edwards Lost
The "winners and losers" from these exchanges were actually fairly clear. The clearest of all was Edwards's loss of the debate about his labor credentials. It started with a softball audience question, "What's wrong with America and what would you do to change it?" He used his passive/aggressive mode of answering to say "it's fine to come up on this stage and give a nice talk," without naming names. He claimed that it was more important to look at where people had been, implying that he had actually done more for labor than the unnamed others. "It's great to give a talk," Edwards repeated, "but who was with you in crunch time?"

Whoops. Edwards had overreached. Throughout the debate every one of the others had referred to pro-labor records stretching back decades or more. Kucinich was a card carrying union member, Obama had begun as an organizer, Dodd, Biden and Clinton cited work in the Senate, and Bill Richardson got a laugh and a cheer for assuring the workers he would continue to take their financial support as he had in previous successful campaigns.

A few minutes later Biden blindsided Edwards: "Did you walk when the corporations in your state were opposed to you?" Biden asked, saying that the "test" of labor loyalty is "not when you're running for president in the last two years." "Where were you the six years you were in the Senate? How many picket lines did you walk on?" He hoisted Edwards on his own petard: "That's the measure of whether we'll be with you when it's tough, not when you're running for president in the last two years, marching on 20 or 30 or 50 picket lines."

The reply that he had been with labor for "years and years" was not specific and did not refute Biden's charge that Edwards was not with labor in the years when he was not running for president. Biden drove the point home by asking, "How many picket lines did you walk in 1999, 1998, 1997?" speaking over Edwards as he was trying to complete his rebuttal.

While Biden was delivering the hit at the ten yard line of Soldier Field, Mark Murray reported during the debate:

The Biden campaign just issued a research document noting that Edwards supported North Carolina's Right to Work law when he was running for the Senate in 1998.
"Tonight, John Edwards said that he claimed to be a leader on union issues throughout his career," said Biden communications director Larry Rasky in a statement. "The public record does not square with Sen. Edwards' memory."

MSNBC piled on in their post-debate show, reporting that although Edwards claimed he had been on a picket line just the other day, he had only been there for a few minutes and had used the scene to shoot a campaign commercial. If true, that is hardly a case of being with labor "in crunch time," the standard for judging the debate that Edwards himself established.

Obama Won (Dodd and Clinton lost)

Edwards was on defense and lost, but Obama succeeded with offense when his foreign policy wisdom was questioned. At issue was this section of a longer foreign policy speech delivered at the Wilson Center last week:

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

The exchange began when Dodd was questioned on his characterization of Obama's Pakistan policy as "confusing" and "unwise." Dodd claimed it is "irresponsible to suggest" we might strike inside of Pakistan.

Obama was offered "the last word" and said, " I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me (applause) for making sure that we are on the right battlefield (applause still growing) and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism." Obama said Dodd should have read his speech. Obama said his policy is "just common sense," (applause) and clarified that he would consult Pakistan first and only would act unilaterally if Pakistan refused to cooperate.

But then, since Hillary was among those who had both voted for the Iraq war and criticized Obama's speech, she was given the chance to reply, claiming "people running for president shouldn't engage in hypotheticals," saying it is a big mistake to "telegraph that" and "destabilize the Pakistan regime." "So, you can think big," she said, "but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president because it can have consequences across the world, and we don't need that right now."

Hillary was then booed. She had provided no evidence for her claim that Obama's policy was dangerous. There is powerful scholarly evidence that it is riskier not to pressure Musharraf . Hers was the same "just trust me because you need to be safe" rhetoric Bush had used in the Iraq war.

Dodd was then given a rebuttal which he used to say it was a mistake to vote as he did in 2002 and that Obama's unilateralism was a mistake. His entire position amounted to an admission that he had made the biggest foreign policy mistake of a generation combined with a repetition of what Obama had already characterized as a distortion of Obama's position.

Obama then got his second "last word." He used it to answer Dodd, Clinton, and all of the other critics whom he characterized as "Washington insiders." He repeated that he had not said we would immediately go in unilaterally, that we should work with Musharraf, and that "the American people need to know -- it is not just Washington insiders," but was cut off on time.

Hillary Clinton, who was not the least bit troubled by discussing hypotheticals about striking terrorists in the first Democratic debate, was left with little ground to argue. Selective and self-serving use of the "it's too dangerous to even discuss it" trope is unconvincing. Even Joe Biden, who usually has Hillary's back, blew off a Sago mine widow's question to "tell the truth" and chime in that strikes based on actionable intelligence of Bin Laden's whereabouts are already U.S. policy. The only remaining ground that leaves Obama's critics is the absurd argument that Pakistanis are more threatened by Obama's rhetoric than they are by official U.S. policy.

Obama's concluding point, that the American people deserve to have crucial foreign policy decisions debated -- that putting issues off limits, is the very kind of politics and governance that got us into the Iraq war -- is a powerful argument in a democracy. His position also fits comfortably with the broader themes of his campaign -- change from oustside the Beltway and pragmatism. In the post-debate spin Howard Wolfsen was reduced to the dihonest distortion of Obama's position as "go[ing] to war against Pakistan."

Here is the entire exchange:

Hillary Stayed Afloat
Hillary Clinton came into the debate slightly bruised from the fallout from the YearlyKos Presidential Forum three days ago over lobbyist contributions to her campaign, but riding high in the most recent poll that shows her lead over her chief rivals increasing.

Although she was on the losing end of the foreign policy debate, Hillary did a good job of fending off pressure from Obama and Edwards on campaign contributions from lobbyists. The references to lobbyists and the power of corporate special interests were sprinkled throughout the remarks of her two challengers. Edwards took up the issue in his very first answer, concluding with, "And we're going to stand up to give the power in America back to you and back to all Americans who deserve it by saying no forever to lobbyist money in Washington, D.C." Obama concluded his second answer of the night with, "Are we going to make certain that you have a voice in Washington and not just those who are paying the big money in Washington to have that opportunity to negotiate?"

But despite their repeated variations on the theme, Hillary Clinton was better prepared last night than she was two three days ago. Her answer was simple: I am a fighter for Democrats and am a winner. "I'm here because I think we need to change America, and it's not to get in fights with Democrats," she said. "I want the Democrats to win, and I want a united Democratic Party that will stand against the Republicans . . . for 15 years I have stood up against the right wing machine, and I have come out stronger. So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl."

Hillary's well prepared lines on this question are hard to use against her. They are the "Eleventh Commandment" invocation Reagan used when he was ahead, a self-serving call for unity that all front runners use when they can. Who can argue against party unity?

Meanwhile, one of Edwards's many attacks on this front might be one he wishes he had not made. It sounded good at the time: "You will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying "I am the candidate that big corporate America is betting on.'"

No, but we may soon see Edwards's pictures next to articles based on a report (that smells like oppo stuff) from the Huffington Post:

But in 2002, Edwards spoke in Washington at the "Fortune Global Forum," a premiere event where attendance is "limited to the chairmen, CEOs, and presidents of major multinational corporations." Edwards told the forum attendees, "People in Washington sometimes overstate government's role in the economy." The speech is available at the DLC website.

The DLC is widely regarded by those Edwards has been courting most heavily, labor and the netroots, as anathema.

Overall, the campaign finance theme, Iraq war vote, and Pakistan allowed Obama to keep Hillary on the defensive even though her defense was excellent. Obama's defense was excellent, too, as he deftly said China was a competitor, neither an ally nor an enemy and handled the toughest one of the toughest and trickiest questions for a labor crowd, immigration, with aplomb. Hillary's one piece of offense was her lead in the polls, a point not lost on her spinner.

Kucinich and Richardson (win, kinda)
Bill Richardson had to be happy. Despite a "needles" moment when he said, "We need enormous challenges to face," Richardson seemed to have surprisingly labor friendly trade policy stances and was never caught in the crossfire. Biden's take down of Edwards might well benefit Richardson.

Dennis Kucinich mixed the occasional practical proposal with calls to turn back the clock by decades. He repeated his (still unexplained) call to "get out of . . . the WTO," and said he would notify Canada and Mexico he was withdrawing from NAFTA his first week in office. He also opposed Most Favored Nation status for China. Even his underdog metaphor hearkened to a distant time - he called himself the Sea Biscuit of the campaign. He did not argue that we should revert to the gold standard. There was a segment of the crowd that cheered Kucinich and he returned the favor. He had a good time.

Biden Did Something Different
He attacked in a different, cutthroat way. He escaped the brunt of Obama's wrath and got friendly nods and references from Hillary. If Richardson doesn't pick up the pieces Biden shattered then Biden himself may have room to make further moves. But he should also be on the lookout for some counterattack on his own corporatist record. Ignoring a widow's question about mine safety to prove he was knowledgeable about Pakistan lost him points, too.

The finale
Fireworks were launched over Soldier Field at the conclusion of the debate. A fitting way to end the biggest and best debate of the Democratic campaign.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot