Thursday, November 15, 2007

Live Coverage of Democratic Debate

Even though it's only been a little more than two weeks since the last time Democrats had at each other in a debate, plenty has changed. Just a week after Hillary botched her response to a question on her stance on granting driver's licenses to illegal citizens, the House approved the free trade agreement being crafted between the US and Peru. Iowa voters must have been paying attention because last week, when touring the state, Democrats were hit with the toughest questions on border security and illegal immigration that they've faced to date.

As many of us were expecting, the debate, especially the first half, was dominated by questions concerning our relations with our southern neighbors. Within the first 20 minutes Wolf went down the line and asked each of the candidates to give a simple 'yes' or 'no' response to allowing illegal immigrants to get licenses. After responding in the affirmative, Obama then gave an uninspiring spiel on his support for passing a complete immigration overhaul that would: 1) secure our borders and 2) toughen punishment of employers who hire illegal immigrants. Without mentioning even a word about amnesty or attempts to bring illegals out of the shadows and into mainstream American society through legalization channels, Obama was obviously aware of the conservative, Nevada crowd keeping him company. However, as he has done throughout his campaign, he framed his response to highlight his strength: he'll be able to bring both sides of the debate to the table to hammer out a plan that keeps Americans safe and working, but that simultaneously respects the human dignity of Mexicans.

Considering that the entry of the immigration issue into the Democratic discussion was sparked by Hillary herself, her simple 'no' answer to the question is pretty surprising. In the week following the debate, she came out, however tentatively, in favor of Spitzer's bill that would grant New York's one million illegal citizens licenses. She, Edwards and the others were able to justify their opposition by saying that more needs to be done to address the basic flaws in our immigration system--but still, it appears as though the immigration debate will continue to be muddled with double-talk.

Right before the end of the first half, Obama and Hillary fielded a question on the US-Peru treaty, the latest of a string of free-trade agreements that the US has encouraged its allies in the third world to adopt. Hillary explained that NAFTA was a total mistake in that it didn't achieve its intended goals; basically she's saying NAFTA and other agreements like it aren't inherently bad, they just haven't been enforced properly. Without offering any substantial plans for modifying our overall approach to trading with the third world, she obviously accepts that there's nothing in dire need of being changed. On the other hand, Obama, who last year voted against CAFTA, says that he supports the deal with Peru only because it includes language that would pressure both sides to comply with international law on labor and environmental quality standards. The fact is that in this respect, the Peru treaty isn't as different as he makes it out to be, but at least he's articulating the basic principles he's looking for in any future agreement that the US signs.

Richardson got some airtime in responding to a member of the crowd's question on the relationship between open borders and Islamic Jihadism--a link that Tancredo and the Republicans would like us to believe is as direct as Bush claimed Iraq and nuclear weapons was. His answer was nothing special, but the fact that the issue was raised at all proved that the Repubs have at least been somewhat successful in their latest Iowa ads in getting Americans thinking that by letting illegal immigrants into our country, we're setting ourselves up for another 9/11.

In sum, the debate, while starting out strong, leveled out to the same slow pace that has dragged down the others. However, it did further solidify the prevalence of the immigration question in the political debate. Also, for the first time, Edwards looked out of place and Hillary proved she's not intimidated by whispers of a Obama comeback. And, Obama, as Chris just put it to me in a Skype message, did pretty well and didn't screw it up.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Think what you like, Obama screwed up. No matter how complicated a question, if you're asked "yes or no" and still try to weasel your way out of it, it looks bad. He fell on his face.

Sebastian T Brown said...

no doubt, i would liked to have seen obama give a simple yes, especially when hillary had so quickly said no, but considering the audience he was speaking to, and the recent debate surrounding the question, I understand where he was coming from. But, even when he does decide to answer a question like that he's gotta be able to do it in a more understandable way. btw...who the hell are you?