Clinton vs. Obama - Iran, Iraq, gas, and will the GOP take Obama down?
Obama defends his electability; Clinton invokes the 1990s.
Clinton vs. Obama - Iran, Iraq, gas, and will the GOP take Obama down?
PA Primary team reports:
10 p.m.
So who won? We blog, you decide.
But...Obama was frequently tentative. Hillary, not so much.
9:40 p.m.
Gas prices at $4 a gallon?
Hillary has an answer. Investigation. “There is market manipulation.” And she has an energy plan.
Obama returns to his theme: people are cynical because the nation has been talking about energy independence for decades, with nothing happening. He proposes an energy “Manhattan Project.”
9:33 p.m.
Gibson asks if they are being hypocrites by having pro-gun control records, but spending the Pennsylvania campaign hanging with hunters.
Clinton again invokes Bill – on police officers and the assault weapons ban. (She’ll bring it back.) “I respect the Second Amendment...but most lawful gun owners…want to be sure we keep those guns out of the wrong hands.”
Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit when asked about the Washington D.C. gun ban. Gibson asks him to deny that he advocated a complete ban on hand guns in 1996. Obama says no. But whatever the truth, no other answer is possible.
Does Clinton support the D.C. ban on hand guns? She favors “what works in New York.” Says there should be local control on guns. Which opens the door to the rules in Montana as well as D.C.
9:18 p.m.
Obama says he would consider having people making more than $97,000 pay Social Security taxes on the higher income.
Clinton invokes Bill's economy again.
Clinton appears more assured than Obama. The problem with debating the details of economic policy, or any policy, for that matter, is the actual details can't be known until the Congressional sausage making machine kicks in. Or off.
9:15 p.m.
After an hour they move onto domestic issues…taxes, housing.
A debate over capital gains taxes. Would Obama raise the rate? Pretty much. With a 15 percent rate, billionaires “are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.”
Clinton invokes the economy under Bill. “We’ve lost that.”
“Good union jobs,” is her goal, she says. No mention that union ranks have been shrinking for decades. She praises Gov. Rendell. Camera cuts to him. He is slumped in his chair, but watching intently.
As for the tax: “I wouldn’t raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all.”
9:03 p.m.
Clinton sounds more assured on a Middle East policy question - should it be us policy to treat an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel as an attack on US?
“I’d try and stop them from getting weapons,” he said. “I will take no options off the table…it is very important than Iran understands an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region…that would be an act of aggression”
Clinton is blunter. “An attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United state” but she would include Iranian attacks on other allied countries in the region, too.
8:54 p.m.
To Clinton – if the military told you that pulling out of Iraq would give back all of the gains, would you still pull out?
“Yes”
“So we can begin with withdraw within 60 says…in a careful…manner” Loophole?
No one can predict what will happen, she says, when American troops leave.
8:40 p.m.
Then Obama tries to take the high ground. Why are we “obsessed” with his comments and Clinton’s Bosnia account. Just mistakes, pretty irrelevant. How about changing the culture of Washington D.C.?
But the issues Obama complains about keep coming.
Why doesn’t Obama wear a flag pin. He tries to rise above it.
"There is no other country where my story is even possible.”
He decries "manufactured issues." Like a former member of the Weather Underground who he knew in Chicago. These are the issues the GOP are expected to use against him.
"This kind of game, in which anyone I know, regardless of how flimsy the relation is..American people are smarter than that."
One test will come April 22.
And Clinton tests it now. Says Obama served on a board with the man. "Certainly, the Republicans will be raising" the issue.
"I have a lot of baggage, and people have rummaged through it for years."
ABC and Clinton may be doing Obama a favor. Giving him a chance to address and, perhaps, knock down these issues, and on Tuesday see whether it work.
8:32 p.m.
Clinton goes nuclear. Or at least deploys the blockbuster bomb in her suitcase.
First, Obama is asked what will you do when the GOP plays those sermons on TV again and again
“If not this, it would be something else.”
“I have confidence in the American people..when they see my track record, the work that I have done, I have absolute confidence they can rally behind my campaign.”
Clinton demurs. And opens the suitcase. “It is something that deserves further exploration…as leaders we have a choice who we associate with." Like, she says, Farrakhan and "giving the church bulletin over to…Hamas.”
8:21 p.m.
"Charlie” Gibson for some reason starts off with a totally irrelevant issue – the vice-presidency. Who cares at this point?
Then he goes right for it. You were patronizing, Gibson asks. And didn’t you say actually what you meant?
Obama’s answer is awkward. Not a clean hit. He talks about people clinging to religion, which sounds a bit like what he said in San Francisco.
Can Obama beat McCain Clinton is asked? “We’re going to have a Democratic president. It’s either going to be Barack or me.”
Asked a second time, she says, “Yes, yes, yes.” Takes a punch for the party. Though she allows she’d be better. They both agree they themselves are best candidate.
Obama comes back to the elitist etc. He talks about his own faith, and Illinois gun owners. He is now a lot more comfortable.
“You take one (mangled) statement…and beat it to death….Its not helping that person at the kitchen table.”
“She’s adopting the same tactics” as the GOP has used. “They are frustrated and angry be cause this is what passes for our politics.”
(It would be fascinating to see their internal polling on the issue.)
8:06 p.m.
Clinton notes the historic nature of their appearance. Neither she, a woman, or Obama, black, would have been allowed to participate in the deliberations at Independence Hall in 1776.
8:02 p.m.
Seconds into the debate raises the "bitter" issue himself, but instead calls it "frustration." Will it inoculate himself against Clinton.
7:45 p.m.
The small audience is already in the National Constitution Center. The debate is being billed by ABC as the "Prime-Time Showdown." Not quite the OK Corral, we trust. It will be moderated by ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
just as i predicted Hill dominated the debate— jack russell- For those in PA that do not man that Obama's church selected as their Man of the Year that was talked about, Louis Farrakhan http://youtube.com/watch?v=PWxNeGOXSoA This is a man that Obama's tight knit church of 20 years believes is a man of greatness, do you, does he? Are you ready to send in tax dollars to pay for the reparations Farrakhan says blacks deserve?— cj410
Comment removed.- These questions were terrible. I don't understand Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopolous's questions. We're not really talking about the issues that matter to most Americans. We're STILL talking about lapel pins, Rev. Wright, and the Weathermen? Wow. This is ridiculous.— jamesinphilly
- Obama's Rev Wright said GD America and we deserved 9/11, a man that placed bombs in America 40 years ago and recently said he was only sorry he did not do more damage, had a fund raiser for Obama, Obama's church selected racist Louis Farrakhan (a man that says all white people are blue eyed devils) to be their Man of the Year. Is there an awful pattern here? Is Obama as inept at selecting his associates and mentors as Bush was selecting people for important jobs like "heck of a job Brownie"?— cj410
- cj410,years of oppression may lead some to ask for reparations. Not to debate that point, agree or not, Farrakhan has done more to pull people up than talk about reparations. In fact, he preaches a great deal about responsibility. Responsibility as fathers, as community leaders, and responsibilty to educate one's self. Do you disagree with these concepts, or are you going to focus on one aspect of his beliefs. With all that said, did Obama give the award? Did Obama control the actions of the church? Did Obama ever say he was in support of reparations? If we're going to judge him on his "relationships" let's make sure we judge others as well.— ralph
- Obama said he disowned Rev Wright. Then the moderator asked for clarification, because Obama did NOT disown Rev Wright. Realizing that he screwed up, Obama stuttered that he disowned the comments. This was not a very good recovery because you don't disown comments.— ldh
- Comment removed.
- Each time I listen to one of these debates I hope for some illumination on one of the pressing issues before us. This has to be the worse debate we've had. ABC News has no right to ask a candidate to pledge not to raise taxes. It's ridiculous. I agree w/Obama that we have regressed to politics as usual. Debates should be left to political heavy weights like CNN and MSNBC.— politicod
- The Real Question is does AMERICA want to elect a Guy Who has a Marxist Theological Belief in Liberation Theorlogy. His economic Plan is Marxist, His Belief in Government is Orthodox Marxism.. and He Tracks almost in its entirety to the Communist Manifesto.. Read it sometime.. But He hides it well in his well Known (School Voucher/Scholarship) so he received Excellent education.— Philly-d-kidder
- No doubt, Hillary was the slickest participant---certainly glib enough to impress those who tend to be impressed by glibness. Obama finally concluded with the only significant statement of the evening, when he pointed out that policy pronouncements have proved impotent given the climate in Washington, D. C., and will remain so unless the next President can build a much broader coalition for change. Does anyone honestly think Hillary and Bill Clinton can?— van Tilman
- I think Obama was extremely angry, which was very understandable. The questions had been rehashed for weeks. Hillary would not let up on attacking Obama. Hillary's said she would not have stayed in a church if the pastor blamed the US for 9/11. The first sermon in my all white church after 9/11 said something similar to what Rev Wright said, although much more indirect. It was in a United Methodist Church, the church Hillary has been a member of her entire life. The same church Bush claimed; however, the church sent him letter before the war telling him not to invade Iraq. They have sent Bush many other letters, including, "United Methodist do not torture." Both pastors were correct, the US had no valid reason to kill innocent people in Iraq and kill our military and other civilians. "Are we in some way responsible for what is happening in Iraq by the way we live our lifestyle? Is it our own desires for oil for our SUVs that caused the war to happen? Is it something about the way we live our life - that we haven't made our own life clean and pure yet that is somehow allowing a tyrant to be in control of people in Iraq because of the natural resources that are there? Tough questions for us, questions that are hard to get a handle on because we want to think we are doing things the right way, because we always want to think we are the good people. "— Linda Kay
- People like Rocky Balboa calls a US Senator a "negro", but there is no race problem in America. Rev. Wright is way off base.— ralph
- That wasn't a debate. It was a travesty and a spectacle. Charlie Gibson should resign from "news" in shame.— Sweatheart
- Thank you Linda Kay, it's not unamerican to challenge America!— ralph
The Inauguration: Jan. 20 blog brings you coverage of President-elect Barack Obama's transition into office.
It's written by political journalists from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Send us your comments -- and news tips -- at this address.
Thomas Fitzgerald joined The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2000, and has covered Harrisburg as well as city, state and national politics for the newspaper. He was a “boy on the bus” in the 2004 presidential campaign and during primary contests in 2000 and 1996.
Nathan Gorenstein has covered politics and government in the city, state and nation for the Inquirer. He's worked in the city hall bureau, had a stint on the business desk, and once covered the suburbs. After serving as assistant regional editor, he was named editor of the "Politics" web site.
