Though the talking heads on CNN puffed Hillary for turning around her prior bad debate night, the actual debate presents a different story. If Hillary sought to reach core Democrats, she dropped some bombs, as did Kucinich.
The quotations come from the Federal News Service transcript.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15debate-transcript.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
The Ross Perot NAFTA Debate
MR. BLITZER: All right.
Senator Clinton, all of us remember the big NAFTA debate when your husband was president of the United States, and a lot of us remember the debate between Al Gore, who was then vice president, and Ross Perot. Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA.
Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right? (Laughter.)
SEN. CLINTON: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts. (Laughter.) That sort of is a vague memory.
Look, NAFTA did not do what many had hoped, and so we do need to take a look at it and we do need to figure out how we're going to have trade relations that are smart, that give the American worker and the American consumer rights around the world.
. . .
MR. BLITZER: All right. So let me rephrase the question. I'll rephrase the question. Was NAFTA a mistake?
REP. KUCINICH: It was passed in the Clinton administration.
MR. BLITZER: Was NAFTA a mistake?
SEN. CLINTON: NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would . . .
Wow! That's what Ross Perot said about NAFTA: that it would not do what its supporters said it would do.
In the early 1990s, America heard an historic debate with Bill Clinton and corporate establishment on one side arguing NAFTA would bring prosperity and jobs here from trade and Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, et al. hearing a sucking sound from jobs moving to Mexico. Tonight Hillary said that Perot was right and, by implication, her husband was wrong about the major economic advance of his administration.
With Hillary's admission, we can now declare officially Ross Perot the winner of that debate.
The Social Security Tax Ceiling and the Middle Class
MR. BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
Senator Clinton, you've been criticized by Senator Obama, I think Senator Edwards, among others, for refusing to take a hard and fast position on whether you would raise the tax above those making $97,500 dollars a year to try to secure Social Security in the long term. Are you ready to make a hard and fast statement now on your position on what Senator Obama just said?
. . .
MR. BLITZER: So --
SEN. CLINTON: -- and then I think we have to have a bipartisan commission. I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle class families and seniors. (Applause.) If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.
. . .
SEN. OBAMA: I will be very brief on this because, Hillary, I've heard you say this is a trillion dollar tax cut on the middle class by adjusting the cap. Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 -- (cheers, applause) -- so 6 percent is not the middle class -- it's the upper class.
Hillary let stand that she used the term "middle class" to refer to the top six percent of income earners and that she didn't want to fix the problem of Social Security on the backs of that top six percent.
Obama was right when he then said:
And you know, this is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani -- (laughter, boos, cheers, applause) --
Hillary's Freudian Slip
MR. EDWARDS: Well, can I say first, nobody on this stage is perfect, and that certainly includes me. (Cross talk.) And I don't claim perfection, far from it.
What I would say is that the issue is whether we can have a president that can restore trust for the American people in the president of the United States. (Applause.) Because I think this president has destroyed that trust, and I think there are fair questions to be asked of all of us, including Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton says she will end the war. She also says she will continue to keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans. But when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney. (Applause.)
On the issue of Social Security, she said, standing beside me on the stage, that she would not do anything about the cap on Social Security taxes. And she has said privately to people, because it's been reported in the press, that, in fact, she would consider raising that cap. And the most important issue is, she says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt, corrupted against the interest of most Americans and corrupted -- (cheers, applause).
MR. BLITZER: All right.
MR. EDWARDS: Let me -- and corrupted for a very small, very powerful, very well-financed --
MR. BLITZER: We're going to --
MR. EDWARDS: So we have fundamental differences.
. . .
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I've just been personally attacked again.
MR. BLITZER: Senator Clinton, I'll let you respond because there was a direct charge made against you.
. . .
SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, I respect all of my colleagues on this stage -- (laughter) -- and, you know, we're Democrats and we're trying to nominate the very best person we can to win. And I don't mind taking hits on my record, on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook because what I -- (cheers, applause) -- what I believe is important is that we put forth what we stand for. I have been active for 35 years. The American people know where I stand.
In the post-debate discussion, several talking heads commended Hillary for successfully standing up to Edwards by attacking his mudslinging.
However, as a matter of fact, Edwards didn't say anything wrong about Hillary's votes or mischaracterize a system that doesn't work, is broken, rigged, corrupted for a very small powerful few. What exactly did Hillary think was mud? His characterization of the Washington political system as corrupt?
Some truth came out: Hillary doesn't have problems with our present Washington system.
Kucinich Raises Third Party Issue
MR. BLITZER: I just want to go down the line and ask everyone, and then we're going to move on to the next question.
Just to be precise because there was a little confusion, thanks to Senator Edwards earlier in the week, I just want to make sure I fully understand all of you Democrats. Are you ready to commit absolutely, positively that you will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who that nominee is, no ifs, ands or buts?
Senator Edwards.
MR. EDWARDS: Is that a planted question?
MR. BLITZER: Yes, I planted it. (Laughter.)
MR. EDWARDS: Yes, I absolutely will support the Democratic nominee for president.
SEN. DODD: Absolutely yes. (Applause.)
SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely yes.
REP. KUCINICH: Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy. (Applause.)
Ouch!
His manner of answering the question suggested prior thought. He implied that if the nominee didn't oppose war as an instrument of policy, he might not support the nominee.
Ralph Nader recently sued Democratic party operatives who opposed his ballot access efforts in 2004. One cannot avoid the inference that the motivation of whoever is financing that litigation more likely stems from concern for the future, 2008, not the past, 2004.
People have said that Nader has said that he would run if Hillary was the nominee.
If Hillary gets the nomination early with a large delegation count in the California primary, third parties might have more time to organize than ever before.
Did Kucinich's response result from conversations to which he may have been a party with other people, such as Nader, about third party anti-war opposition to Hillary? Were they discussing the possibility of Nader/Kucinich, Kucinich/Nader, or how about Kucinich/Medea Benjamin?
This could have been the biggest bomb of them all.
