Clinton Attacks, Obama Parries

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama dueled in their final Democratic debate in Cleveland on Tuesday night. Clinton ignored her colleague Sen. Chris Dodd's call for unity earlier Tuesday and passionately attacked Obama on a variety of issues.

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.