Market Features

Return to Article

Clinton Attacks, Obama Parries

John Fout

Obama deflected most of the attacks, clearly improving on his performance in prior debates. Obama made no serious errors under pressure, much to Clinton's chagrin. Should he become the Democratic nominee, he might want to thank Clinton for taking him to task over policy and substance.

And he's looking more like the nominee unless Clinton can sweep both Ohio and Texas on Tuesday.

The first attacks of the debate came on health care, a topic I have covered in detail. Obama has tried to paint Clinton's mandate of universal coverage as a bad thing because some people may not be able to afford it. But this ignores a few key points. Clinton's plan has significant subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance.

Furthermore, Obama's plan has mandates for children but not their parents. Clinton pointed out that this mandate won't help kids if their parents get sick.

Both candidates hope to get universal coverage passed. But many Republicans will dislike both plans because they call for taxpayer dollars to be spent on health care.

Both candidates have also been crisscrossing Ohio, hammering the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), trying to curry favor with voters unhappy about the loss of manufacturing jobs there. But demagoguery won't bring jobs back to Ohio.

Tim Russert caught both candidates wanting to have it both ways on NAFTA, at times speaking for its economic benefits and other times lambasting it for political purposes. In particular, he hit Clinton on a campaign promise she made to bring jobs to Buffalo. She had promised 200,000, but Buffalo actually has lost 40,000. Clinton blamed Bush policies for the job losses.

In reality, both candidates actually endorse trade agreements. The latest example came at the end of 2007, when they supported the free trade agreement with Peru, which has some of the protections for the environment and labor lacking in NAFTA.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed NAFTA on its 10th anniversary in 2003. The CBO model found that:

"Changes in trade between the United States and Mexico since NAFTA went into effect have been determined primarily by factors other than the agreement."

Globalization has much more to do with a loss of manufacturing jobs through outsourcing than NAFTA. Chinese workers, for example, receive wages and benefits much lower than those American workers receive.

Both went on the record saying they would ask for modifications to NAFTA. Nevertheless, one of the candidates will eventually face John McCain, who unequivocally supports free trade. The Democrats need to get their story straight.

The free-trade discussion led to a discussion on foreign affairs. Clinton has made the argument on the campaign stump that Obama has as little experience as President Bush had when he entered office. Obama counters he has had better judgment than Bush or Clinton.

He points out that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002 -- a position few politicians can claim. He explained that his record has been similar to Clinton's since he's been in the Senate because what options "do you have when driving a bus out of ditch?" He also favored calling for fair elections in Pakistan, embracing an alternative to dealing with Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Furthermore, Obama supports preemptive attacks on al-Qaeda when Pakistan won't move on actionable intelligence. Advantage Obama.

All of Obama's position prove reasonable. But Obama has to be careful with some of his looser comments. For example, his comment on bombing al-Qaeda in Pakistan clearly demonstrates some of his inexperience. Both President Bush and former President Bill Clinton took preemptive actions against terrorists hiding in sovereign nations. It has to be done to protect our interests. But it's inappropriate to discuss this type of action in public on the campaign trail, because it could have serious diplomatic repercussions. Musharraf criticized Obama by name after the comment.

Clinton criticized Obama for not taking up work in his subcommittee in the Senate. He chairs a committee on European affairs. NATO allies have faced harsh words from President Bush in recent days for not helping more in Afghanistan, which Obama believes needs more attention from the U.S. Obama said he's been campaigning and unable to convene a meeting. (The Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, which Clinton chairs, met three times last year while she campaigned).

Furthermore, Clinton called attention to her past record on foreign affairs. While First Lady, she helped facilitate peace in Ireland and spoke out on behalf of human rights, in particular women's rights, in a famous speech in Beijing in 1995. This is in addition to her time spent in the Senate for seven years.

Several other moments in the debate stand out. In a moment of levity, Clinton pointed to a recent Saturday Night Live skit portraying the softball treatment the press is accused of giving Obama. She repeated a funny line from it: "Perhaps Obama needs another pillow." Obama responded with a good-natured smirk.

Russert tried to create some controversy when he noted that controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan had recently spoken in favor of Obama's candidacy. Obama responded that he can't control who endorses him, and he repeated his rejection of Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments.

Clinton chimed in about a similar experience she faced in New York. She had been endorsed by the Independence Party, whose leaders have been accused of making anti-Semitic statements. Clinton publicly denounced the endorsement, and she said Obama should do the same. So he did denounce Farrakhan, escaping a possibly dangerous attack, but he did so with a grin about how this was parsing verbiage.

Clinton had a more passionate and aggressive performance in the debate. Despite her scoring points, she failed to knock a confident Obama off his game. Obama handled the attacks and kept his momentum going. Clinton now depends on the voters of Ohio and Texas to keep her candidacy going.