«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Dems Debate in Nevada: All's Calm on Iraq and Race, But Not on Nuclear Energy

What did the umpteenth Democratic presidential debate, held in Nevada on Tuesday night, demonstrate? That Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton each need a nap. The trio looked worn out. Perhaps that was why few punches were thrown. The Iraq war, the politics of race, tears (or near tears)--the Democratic contest had become rather heated in recent days. Clinton, using misleading information, had accused Obama of being a disingenuous hypocrite regarding the war. Obama's camp had seized on a comment Clinton had made to Fox News and assailed her for supposedly dissing Martin Luther King Jr. And Edwards had snidely insinuated Clinton might not be strong enough to be president (after she became emotional at a campaign stop in New Hampshire). It was getting nasty.

But in Las Vegas, there was relative calm. And no one hit the jackpot.

Sure, there were a few pokes. Clinton declined to state that Obama and Edwards are prepared to be president. Edwards noted that Clinton and Obama had pocketed campaign contributions from corporate executives. Obama suggested that Clinton was using the specter of a future terrorist attack to scare people into voting for her. Overall, though, the three stuck to their positive scripts. Obama: I can inspire, mobilize, and bring together a divided nation. Clinton: I have the experience to be ready on Day One to solve problems for you and your children. Edwards: I will fight to my last breath for middle-class and low-income Americans. (Clinton did have a Clintonian moment when she acknowledged that she had voted for the anti-consumer bankruptcy bill of 2001 but "was happy that it never became law." In other words, I voted for it but didn't inhale.)

The major clash of the night came over...energy policy. With the debate being held in Nevada, there was the obligatory question about Yucca Mountain, the proposed disposal site for nuclear waste that Nevadans tend to despise. All three Democrats voiced their opposition to continuing the project. Clinton, though, pointed out that Edwards had twice voted in favor of Yucca Mountain when he was in the Senate. He explained his shift by claiming new scientific information had emerged since his votes. Edwards then countered that of the three he was the only one who was flat-out opposed to constructing any more nuclear power plants. Edwards noted that Clinton was "agnostic" on the issue and that Obama had said he might support additional nuclear power plants. Obama replied that he would not rule out developing more nuclear energy facilities if the waste issue could be resolved.

During this portion of the debate, Clinton took the opportunity to criticize Obama for having voted for the "Dick Cheney/lobbyist" energy bill of 2005, which included big tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Edwards turned to Clinton and reminded her that she had raised more money than any candidate from the oil and gas industries. He added that he was the only candidate who favored a moratorium on the production of new coal-fired power plants, unless they incorporate technology that captures greenhouse gas emissions. Obama ended this tussle on energy policy by saying that "ordinary citizens have to make a change" and consume less energy by using more efficient lighting and appliances: "There's no reason why, with the kind of presidential leadership that I intend to provide, that we can't make drastic cuts in the amount of energy that we consume without any drop in our standard of living." Whew. It was enough to make a policy wonk's head spin. But Edwards clearly seemed the no-nukes candidate and the greenest of the three.

That was it for the fireworks. The candidates went on to agree about immigration reform and the need for early childhood education.

It's unlikely that the two-hour-long debate will have much impact on the Nevada Democratic caucus this Saturday--a contest that will probably be more affected by the campaign's organizational muscle. The debate showed yet again that on policy matters, despite all the recent passion, there are more similarities than differences among the three. For Democratic voters, the choice is fundamentally one of style and character. Given that the three are generally advocating the same progressive proposals and notions, that's not such a bad deal for Democrats.

Comments

There is a wide difference between the three on Iraq. Despite what people like Russert said after the debate Clinton did not committ to get troops out by the end of the first year. She came close but then hedged her bets. Given that all she has ever promised was to start the process of troop withdrawal the first year, her hedging should be taken to show that she has not changed her story. She has been for years one of the most hawkish democrats in the Senate, giving cover to the Bush administration. She will do to the Iraq war what Nixon did to Vietnam; try to take it out of the spotlight for political gain, while pursuing an aggressive and immoral policy there.

Bases will be left and will be called temporary because they will not be there until the end of days. The military presence will allow us to continue de facto control of the country. It will continue to inflame public opinion against us, leading to continued insurgent attacks, which will be the excuse given for why the withdrawal cannot be completed. All the while US corporations will be squeezing everything they can from Iraq.

The claim that they are substantially similar and that all of them are substantially better than any republican is just false.

Posted by: Patrick on 01/15/08 at 10:12 PM Respond

Edwards is against nuclear power AND coal? Does he want us all to live in teepees and migrate with the geese?

Posted by: PaulKirk on 01/16/08 at 5:52 AM Respond

There are more than two forms of energy, my friend. Ask the Kennedy's and their rich neighbors how they feel about windmills at the edge of the ocean that would have provided a great source of power to parts of New England. Then there is solar power that would do quite well in a state like Nevada. Not all energy has to be dangerous and dirty.

Posted by: Paul Miller on 01/16/08 at 6:58 AM Respond

One solar panel (100 by 100 miles square) could provide the power necessary for the whole country. (older data but the idea is sound)

see:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html

Posted by: capt on 01/16/08 at 7:48 AM Respond

Though it appears few others agree, I think Obama scored the most points. Given that the knock against him has been "all style, and no substance," his grasp and analysis of the issues put him in a good light. Also, his citing of the importance of black fathers taking responsibility for their children demonstrated once again why he cannot be pegged as the "black candidate," try as Bill and Hillary might.

Posted by: floyd allen on 01/16/08 at 9:54 AM Respond

Wasn't this worth a mention?; the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling that this political debate was "private" - owned by MSNBC and therefore they - the corporate networks- have the right to decide the criteria for allowing a candidate to be heard and seen by the public. And apparently they can change the criteria at will to allow or disallow their favored or disfavored participants.

The argument that it would be tampering with the "free speech" of the networks is nullified by the fact that the major networks have been given 'our' airwaves (we own them and law decrees that they use them in the public interest. If the networks and their corporate owners -such as General Electric in the case of NBC- indeed are the arbitrators and gatekeepers of political debate then kiss democracy good-bye.

And doesn't it concern you that the network owned by one of the world's largest arms producers can eliminate from our eyes and ears the candidate most articulate against war.

This court argument was significant and deserves to be explored by any mention of this so-called debate.

S. Gail

Posted by: Sharon gail on 01/16/08 at 1:47 PM Respond

Ms. Gail,

You echoed what I wrote on my own blog earlier, and I'm appalled that this Mother Jones blog didn't mention Kucinich's exclusion from the debate. The circumstances behind it far supersede what Barack or Hillary said at the "debate", and the 3 candidates should be ashamed of themselves for participating in such a farce.

Posted by: Jeff Blanch on 01/16/08 at 2:15 PM Respond

Our astute press seemed to have forgotten all about the Dayton amendment to cap credit card rate sat 30 per cent. It failed. Look at the yeas and nays...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00020

Posted by: taters on 01/16/08 at 3:40 PM Respond

I tuned in looking for Kucinich - it's always irritating to see networks excluding anyone in particular races, it's just flat out cronyism to limit different perspectives from getting into the open - so I was pissed off to find him absent. But Hillary and Barack seemed so keen on playing nice with each other that I thought Edwards best. Both Obama and Clinton spoke over and over of "change" and "a plan," but zero specifics. Edwards at least kept stating specific positions, and tougher ones than either of the other two: his dedication to getting out of Iraq by the end of 2009, his complete objection to any permanent American military settlements in Iraq, his environmental positions, his criticism of campaign financing as tacit bribe, etc. I don't think he's anything remotely resembling the perfect president, but he at least sounded like he had a genuine vision rather than just talking about one. Speaking of which, heard a Clinton radio ad today where she talks about how health care has to be fixed, and how she has a plan. The ad exhorts the listener not to vote Clinton but to tell their Congressmen to "pass the Clinton health plan." But not a word of what the plan entails. How are we supposed to get worked up about it if we don't know what it is? I'm getting pretty tired of all these candidates telling us they have plans and visions but not bothering us with the salient details.

Posted by: Malcolm on 01/16/08 at 5:44 PM Respond

The key part of the energy discussion was when Obama referred to the "low hanging fruit" of efficiency. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute coined this phrase and when I heard Obama use it I shouted out loud for joy. All the discussion of energy avoids the reality that we are incredibly wasteful in our homes, cars, businesses and factories. Over half of our energy needs can be eliminated by being smart about our buildings and consumption. The good news is that we can have wonderful "green" buildings that make a net profit! Please refer to www.rmi.org. This lets me know Obama is on the correct track to tackle this problem. He alone of all the candidates can unite and inspire us to take on this challange.

Posted by: Phil; Rolleston on 01/18/08 at 3:00 PM Respond

One more thing that I forgot. Lovins states that no nuclear plant has been established with only private capital. If Obama's plans on fixing the enormous subsidies in the energy sector, then Lovin's prediction that without subsidies nuclear power would die of "an acute case of market capitalism" would come true. I'm sure that Obama is aware of Lovins' opinion on this.

Posted by: Phil rolleston on 01/18/08 at 3:10 PM Respond