By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
New York Times
February 1, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met for debate here Thursday, sitting side by side and sharing a night of smiles, friendly eye-catching and gentle banter. Cordial as the encounter was, the candidates did not mask their own divisions, even as they previewed the attacks one of them will ultimately make against a Republican rival.

Still, it was almost as if the battle was to see which of them could outnice the other.

At the end of the nearly two-hour encounter, as the audience of Democrats and Hollywood celebrities rose to its feet at the Kodak Theater, Mr. Obama held Mrs. Clinton's chair as she rose. The two rivals, almost hugging, held each others' elbows and whispered in one another's ear, offering a striking image that captured the tenor of the debate.

"When we started off, we had eight candidates on this stage. We are now down to two," Mr. Obama said. "I think one of us two will end up being the next president of the United States."

Gone were the sharp and sometimes personal attacks that have characterized a year's worth of debates, particularly a combative session last week in South Carolina, which both sides conceded had tarnished their images.

Still, the candidates were at pains to lay out their differences on issues like national health care, the Iraq war and experience in their last appearance together before voters in more than 20 states weigh in Tuesday on the presidential nominating fight.

As she has through much of the campaign, Mrs. Clinton found herself defending her 2002 Senate vote to authorize war against Iraq — a position that has been enduringly unpopular with Democrats. The vote has forced her to discuss her shifting stands on Iraq instead of the antiwar principle she has sought to embrace in the campaign.

"I think now we have to look at how we go forward," she said. "There will be a great debate between us and the Republicans, because the Republicans are still committed to George Bush's policy."

Mr. Obama, given his opposition to the war from 2002 onward, argued that he would be in a strongest position to challenge the Republican nominee over Iraq.

"I think it is much easier for us to have the argument when we have a nominee who says, 'I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy,' " Mr. Obama said to applause. "They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways."

"The question," he said, "is, can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission from the start, and that we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war?"

Still, unlike when they last met for debate, when they attacked each other over personal conduct as well as issues, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama aimed their sharpest words at Republicans.

Mrs. Clinton criticized President Bush over his stewardship of the economy, while Mr. Obama chided Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of the two Republicans leading in their race, for supporting Bush-backed tax cuts for wealthy Americans after initially opposing them.

"Somewhere along the line the Straight Talk Express lost some wheels," Mr. Obama said, referring to one of Mr. McCain's political slogans.

Both lavished praise on John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who dropped out of the race this week and whose endorsement they are actively seeking.

Mr. Obama said he and Mr. Edwards were determined to fight special interests and big business. Mrs. Clinton twice noted early on that her universal health care plan — which, unlike Mr. Obama's, includes a requirement that all Americans have health care — was very similar to that of Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Obama countered that about "95 percent" of his plan and Mrs. Clinton's were the same, but that he believed his proposal went further to reducing costs.

But their tone Thursday night was largely friendly. Each candidate laughed agreeably and nodded at the other's remarks, and they praised each other at different points and looked ahead to the battle with the other party.

"They are more of the same," Mrs. Clinton said of the Republican candidates. "Neither of us, by looking at us, is more of the same — we will change our country."

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton sidestepped a question about whether either would select the other as a running mate. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the moderator, called it a "dream ticket" in the eyes of many Democrats. In fact, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have built up resentments toward each other over the campaign and seem unlikely to want to pair up for the general election.

"We've got a lot more road to travel," Mr. Obama said, "and so I think it's premature for either of us to start speculating about vice presidents." When pressed, he said, "I'm sure that Hillary would be on anybody's short list."

Mrs. Clinton responded in kind. "Well, I have to agree with everything Barack just said," she replied, to laughter from the audience.

Later, Mrs. Clinton was forced to fend off a question about her ability to "control" former President Bill Clinton from interfering in her administration should she become president in 2009, given his assertiveness on the campaign trail. (Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged that her husband has become "carried away" at times recently.)

"The fact is that I'm running for president, and this is my campaign," she said to applause. She added: "At the end of the day, it's a lonely job in the White House. And it is the president of the United States who has to make the decisions. And that is what I'm asking to be entrusted to do."

On one flash point — immigration — Mr. Obama cited his role in immigration reform legislation in Washington last year. He voiced his support for states giving driver's licenses to undocumented workers.

"People don't come here to drive, they come here to work," Mr. Obama said.

It was an issue that stirred controversy in a debate last year, which Mr. Obama sought to raise by pointing out that his rival gave "a number of different answers on this over the course of six weeks."

"Now she does have a clear position, but it took awhile," Mr. Obama said Thursday. "The only reason I bring that up is to underscore the fact that this is a difficult political issue."

It was the first dust-up of the evening between the candidates, occurring near the end of the first hour. Mrs. Clinton smiled and offered her reply.

"I just have to correct the record for one second," she said, explaining that she initially supported the concept of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants so she could help Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, who was being criticized over the issue. Turning to Mr. Obama directly, she said: "You were asked the same question and could not answer it. So this is a difficult issue."

Asked by Mr. Blitzer whether she was "missing in action" during the immigration debate, Mrs. Clinton was quick to reject the suggestion.

"I cosponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004, before Barack came to the Senate," she said.

In a week where Senator Edward M. Kennedy endorsed the candidacy of Mr. Obama, as did Caroline Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton was asked why they had chosen her rival and whether she would represent the kind of change that would inspire a nation.

"I have the greatest respect for Senator Kennedy and the Kennedy family," Mrs. Clinton said. "I'm proud to have three of Bobby's kids supporting me — Bobby, Kathleen and Kerry supporting me."

She added, "I think having the first woman president would be a huge change for America and the world."

The candidates could not question one another in the debate, but took questions from viewers. A 38-year-old woman in South Carolina, who sent her question in by e-mail, said she had never voted for someone not named Bush or Clinton. She wondered how Mrs. Clinton would represent change.

"You have to make the case for yourself," Mrs. Clinton said. "And I want to be judged on my own merits. I don't want to be advantaged — or disadvantaged."

The debate also featured questions about the strengths of Senator McCain and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts — the two leading Republican presidential candidates. Asked about Mr. Romney's experience as a chief executive officer, Mr. Obama drew laughs when he reminded the audience that Mr. Romney has significantly outspent his rivals, investing millions of his own money.

"Mitt Romney hasn't gotten a very good return on his investment during this presidential campaign," Mr. Obama said, adding that he would match his financial management skills with Mr. Romney's. (Hours before the debate, Mr. Obama's campaign announced that he had raised $32 million in January alone.)

Not only was the debate much less contentious than Wednesday night's debate among the remaining Republican candidates, but it was also far more muted than recent Democratic debates — an obvious calculation on the part of both candidates, who have been criticized for being overly harsh and personal. Democratic leaders feared that the negative tone would carry over to the general election, tamping down voters' enthusiasm.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/7119

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

October 12, 2007
New York Times
Editorial

What, Me Worry?

If anybody had a doubt about Republicans' detachment from the economic reality of most Americans, Fred Thompson, the former United States senator, set them straight as he opened Tuesday's Republican presidential debate: the economy, he declared, "is rosy."

He wasn't the only one in rose-colored denial or out of touch. Despite entreaties from their hosts, all the leading Republican candidates neatly overlooked Americans' fear of recession and the fallout from the meltdown in the housing market.

Watching the debate, it felt as if these candidates, or at least the front-runners, were living in an alternate universe. It's one where nothing but taxes can stop the ever upward growth of the American economy and where a problem hasn't been invented - millions of uninsured, America's dependency on Middle Eastern oil - that can't be dealt with through tax cuts, slashing government spending and regular, stiff doses of deregulation.

Forget a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade regime for carbon emissions - not that anybody mentioned global warming as a big problem. Forget expensive incentives to develop alternative energy sources. With everybody calling for lower taxes, Republicans were left with no way to address any problem except exhorting the private industry to show its resourcefulness.

The best brawl was over who had done more harm to his constituents: Rudolph Giuliani, who according to Mitt Romney increased spending by 2.8 percent a year when he was mayor of New York City, or Mr. Romney, who according to Mr. Giuliani raised taxes by 11 percent per capita when he was governor of Massachusetts.

All this bowing before the tax-slashing idol could be understood as a matter of political survival. But the economic arguments are nonsense, none more so than the claim - trumpeted by Mr. Giuliani and a revered tenet of his party - that lower tax rates will inevitably generate more tax revenues. That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Two years ago, the Congressional Budget Office published an analysis of the effect of a tax cut on economic growth and tax revenues. It found that even under the rosiest of assumptions, cutting taxes led, inevitably, to lower revenues and a bigger deficit. But perhaps those assumptions were not rosy enough for the Republican presidential candidates.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6468

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

After Loss of Majority, Several Republicans Head for Exits

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
New York Times
August 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, August 17 - A rash of retirements among House Republicans is adding to the party?s electoral challenges and raising questions about a rush for the exits.

Four House Republicans - Representatives J. Dennis Hastert and Ray LaHood, both of Illinois; Deborah Pryce of Ohio; and Charles W. Pickering Jr. of Mississippi - have all announced in recent days that they will not seek re-election next year, worrying Republican leaders anxious to hold back a potential wave of retirements after the loss of their majority in 2006. Mr. Hastert, the former speaker, Mr. LaHood and Ms. Pryce were all well-liked leaders within their party.

"I think our party's chances for winning the majority back next time are pretty bleak at the moment," Mr. LaHood said in an interview, "and I will admit to you that being in the minority is less fun."

"People are going to continue to have heartburn over the war," he said. "Democrats will win the White House, hold their majority in the House and in the Senate in 2008, and then in 2010 we will have an extraordinary opportunity in the off-year of a Democratic presidency and Congressional majorities to possibly win it back. But it is not going to happen the next time," in 2008.

Julie Shutley, a spokeswoman for the House Republican campaign committee, called the retirements "normal and to be expected." Ms. Shutley said that in each of the last three elections about 30 lawmakers, including members of both parties, had chosen to retire. Predictions of mass Democratic retirements after the Republicans took over in 1994 "never materialized," she said.

That may depend on one's perspective. Forty-nine House members did not seek re-election in 1996, and 28 were Democrats - 28 being nearly double the usual number.

Republicans gained 10 of those 28 seats, and that was in a year when President Bill Clinton won re-election at the top of the ticket and Democrats gained seats over all.

"2008 is likely to be a tougher year for Republicans than 1996 was for Democrats," said David Wasserman, who tracks House races for the Cook Political Report, a newsletter.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, argued that the retirements would contribute to a "psychology" of demoralization among Republicans.

"If the past is prologue here, we can expect to see a lot more than the average number of retirements after an election," Mr. Van Hollen said. "And every vacancy creates opportunities."

Capitalizing on their new majorities and sunny prospects, House and Senate Democrats have trounced the Republicans in fund-raising during the first half of the year. The House Democratic campaign committee reported $19.5 million in cash and $4.1 million in debt at the end of June, compared with $2 million on hand and $4.3 million in debt at the House Republican committee.

The Senate Democratic campaign committee had $20.3 million in cash and $4.5 million in debt, compared with $5.8 million on hand with no debts at the Republican Senate committee.

Senate Republicans may face a special challenge because they have so many seats to defend. Of the 34 Senate seats up for election next year, about two-thirds are occupied by Republicans. That means 22 of 49 Republican senators will be running.

Senator Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado, has already announced plans not to seek re-election, setting the stage for a competitive race to succeed him. A handful of other Republicans, including Senator John W. Warner of Virginia and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, are said to be weighing retirement. Neither Mr. Warner nor Mr. Hagel have publicly committed to seek re-election.

All the House Republicans who are not seeking re-election said they made their decisions for personal reasons.

"It is just time," Ms. Pryce said. "Five years ago I adopted a little baby, and she is starting kindergarten and I am all she has and we need to be together, and it is just not an option to move her to Washington, so that is why."

Ms. Pryce's district, around Columbus, Ohio, is considered a national bellwether: It is a swing district in a swing state. Of the four announced retirements, it is the Democrats' best hope to pick up a seat. In 2006, Ms. Pryce, then a member of the House Republican leadership, squeaked out a victory over her Democratic challenger, Mary Jo Kilroy, who is running again in 2008.

"It was an ugly race, it was a brutal race, but Republicans held the seat, and that was when all the stars to the very last one lined up against Republicans," Ms. Pryce said, arguing that a new Republican candidate could win again.

Asked if 2008, a presidential election year, might be even tougher for her party with troops still in Iraq, she said, "I didn't think it would ever be any worse - that is what we said then - so who knows?"

The Illinois districts of Mr. Hastert and Mr. LaHood lean Republican, but Mr. Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic campaign committee, said the party planned to mount stiff races in each.

"The Hastert seat is not guaranteed for the Republicans," said Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political analyst. "All things being equal, they probably ought to hold it, but they have to run a good race."

Mr. Pickering's Mississippi district, however, is considered unassailably Republican. The California district of Representative Duncan Hunter, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination and not running again for the House, is also considered safe.

Three House Democrats are not seeking re-election. Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois is retiring, and Tom Allen of Maine and Mark Udall of Colorado are running for the Senate. But all of their seats are considered safely Democratic.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post