(D)ebate Round 3
This afternoon's Democratic debate proved to be far more interesting than the previous two. Wesley Clark's "coming out" event proved his seriousness as a candidate. Dean held his ground well in the face of attacks. Kerry appeared to be mincing words. Dick Gephart still makes the same gestures with same angry tone of voice. Al Sharpton provided the laugh track and the rest of the field hung on for dear life.
Sponsored by CNBC and The Wall Street Journal, this was the first debate involving all ten candidates. Host Brian Williams started the questioning off with a direct inquiry to Gen. Wesley Clark about his loyalty to the Democratic party. Comments about his support for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the current administration as recently as 2001 has caused some flack for the Clark campaign. In defense of his legitimacy, Clark referred to his stance on abortion, the environment, affirmative action, and foreign policy as proof that the Democratic party is the right one for him. Williams then gave Gov. Dean a chance to comment on this issue to which Dean deftly replied that voters would decide the legitimacy of candidates.
Shooting straight to the top tier after his entrance in the race, Clark now holds an important place in the field. Gephart, Kerry, and Kucinich continued to go after Howard Dean on a number of his positions clarifications (also known as flip-flops). Absent were any snarky remarks from Joe Lieberman who is likely tired of being booed. Like the invitation to attack Clark, Dean tried to stay above the fray occasionally slipping in an exchange with Gephart and Kerry. Knowing that Gephart would attack him for his circa 1994 support of increasing the retirement age, Dean deftly brought it up first as well as Gephart's waffling on other Medicare related issues. The stated point: candidates should evaluate different positions and can change their minds later. This is a position that Clark supporters can understand in light of some of the General's recent waffling and is a good one. Consistency is important but sometimes candidates say stupid things. Damage control can work and very few mistakes are fatal. Both Dean and Clark have done a good job keeping up with their mistakes. Now they need to stop making them! Overall, I was very glad to see Clark stay out of the bickering and Dean stay away from criticizing him directly.
Clark gave a great performance. He proved that his powerful background has given him the training to deal with journalists in a respectful way, that he can admit to not knowing something right away, and that he is a serious thoughtful person. His response to the issue of Social Security privatization was most impressive. The General emphasized the value of Social Security, and by implication other entitlement programs, to a modern migratory workforce. This is a point that I have been making for years and is often forgotten by new economy thinkers. If the future of the economy involves workers changing employers and careers many times throughout their lives, government regulated programs are the only possible way to ensure consistency of service.
I look forward to Clark applying this argument to other entitlement programs such as health care. He has promised to deliver a policy statement in the coming weeks. It is only rational that workers who change jobs and careers would be better off with a universal system than they would having to deal with different providers, different insurers, and gaps between jobs. Universal health care, by any means, ought to be a right in every advanced economy. Like any good social program the argument for it is much broader than just assistance for the uninsured. All members of society will benefit when having a long-term condition does not come with the addition of having to worry about being dropped from a health plan.
One needless issue of contention continues to be what to do with the Bush tax cut. Though not an original point, Dean is correct to demand a look at the entire impact of the Bush tax cut on average workers. Kerry and Edwards both tried to make the argument that working families need that 300 or 2000 to "pay the bills." That 300 dollars was a bribe and no working family will mind giving it up for more federal money to local governments, universal (or near universal) healthcare, and a better economy. All of the Bush tax cuts are indefensible and the Democrats should line up behind this issue. Kerry looks desperate for something to argue with Dean about on this issue and gains no traction for his efforts.
All in all, this debate was much more interesting than the first two. The ten person format is a little tough to deal with and Mosley-Braun complained about not being asked enough questions. I have a solution: get the bottom chunk of this field out of the race and fast. Oh and get rid of Lieberman for good measure, he can replace Dick Cheney on the Republican ticket.
1 Comments
Leave a comment
Who is this guy?
Sam,
your first paragraph reminded me of something i wanted to ask you after the first debate. are Gephart's gestures the same pseudo-sexual ones they tried to teach you to use on your speech/debate team so long ago?