No big winner or loser in Democrats' debate
Analysis
By Todd Dorman Journal Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Friday, September 21, 2007
DES MOINES -- Five Democrats seeking the presidency were nearly unanimous Thursday in their insistence that a muscular federal government can achieve big things, from expanding access to health care to cleaning up the mortgage mess.
What they couldn't agree on is which candidate can get the job done. And Thursday's debate in Davenport didn't give caucusgoers a clear answer.
No candidate emerged as a hands-down winner or loser in Thursday's 90-minute, televised forum. The contenders exchanged compliments more times than they exchanged shots.
And on one of the central issues of the night -- how best to expand health care insurance coverage to all Americans -- it seemed at times like the rivals had exchanged notes.
All five hopefuls on stage -- Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson -- explained plans that would use government power to remold the health insurance system. Each would preserve private insurance and use government to fill the gaps.
They also heaped blame on insurance and drug companies for the system's woes and promised things would be different with Democrats in charge.
Their plans to pay for expansion had roughly the same mix of math and mystery. They'd roll back tax cuts for "the rich" and plow billions of dollars in supposed cost savings from new efficiencies and streamlining efforts into expanded coverage. An emphasis on prevention, they promised, would be worth pounds of revenue.
But who can make reform happen?
Edwards reminded the audience that his plan was first by several months, and offered mildly sarcastic praise of his rivals, particularly Clinton, for finally joining him in the debate. Clinton pointed to battle scars from her 1993 universal health healthcare effort as evidence that she can get the job done 14 years later.
Dodd insisted he could win over the Republican support needed for reform. Richardson pointed to his health care work as a governor, prompting one of the sharpest zingers of the night from Biden.
"That's like saying, you know, I played halfback when I was in high school, I can play in the pros -- a different deal," Biden said.
They differed on details when it came fixing Social Security, but all made it clear that the program should remain firmly nestled in government hands.
Edwards advocated taxing "the rich" to shore up the system. Clinton disagreed, arguing that a balanced federal budget is the first step. Again, as on health care, they politely fought to a draw.
All said Wall Street should be held to account for the mortgage mess and pensioners must be shielded from big businesses shenanigans. Applause lines were shared and shared alike.
The no-show, Barack Obama, was a non-factor. His name came up once in the context of tax cuts, but he absorbed no long-distance barbs.
And when he returns to Iowa today he'll find the caucus campaign much the way he left it. Thursday's debate gave Democrats much of what they wanted to hear, but it didn't change a close race they have four months to decide.
Todd Dorman can be reached at (515) 243-0138 or at todd.dorman@lee.net
What they couldn't agree on is which candidate can get the job done. And Thursday's debate in Davenport didn't give caucusgoers a clear answer.
No candidate emerged as a hands-down winner or loser in Thursday's 90-minute, televised forum. The contenders exchanged compliments more times than they exchanged shots.
And on one of the central issues of the night -- how best to expand health care insurance coverage to all Americans -- it seemed at times like the rivals had exchanged notes.
All five hopefuls on stage -- Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson -- explained plans that would use government power to remold the health insurance system. Each would preserve private insurance and use government to fill the gaps.
They also heaped blame on insurance and drug companies for the system's woes and promised things would be different with Democrats in charge.
Their plans to pay for expansion had roughly the same mix of math and mystery. They'd roll back tax cuts for "the rich" and plow billions of dollars in supposed cost savings from new efficiencies and streamlining efforts into expanded coverage. An emphasis on prevention, they promised, would be worth pounds of revenue.
But who can make reform happen?
Edwards reminded the audience that his plan was first by several months, and offered mildly sarcastic praise of his rivals, particularly Clinton, for finally joining him in the debate. Clinton pointed to battle scars from her 1993 universal health healthcare effort as evidence that she can get the job done 14 years later.
Dodd insisted he could win over the Republican support needed for reform. Richardson pointed to his health care work as a governor, prompting one of the sharpest zingers of the night from Biden.
"That's like saying, you know, I played halfback when I was in high school, I can play in the pros -- a different deal," Biden said.
They differed on details when it came fixing Social Security, but all made it clear that the program should remain firmly nestled in government hands.
Edwards advocated taxing "the rich" to shore up the system. Clinton disagreed, arguing that a balanced federal budget is the first step. Again, as on health care, they politely fought to a draw.
All said Wall Street should be held to account for the mortgage mess and pensioners must be shielded from big businesses shenanigans. Applause lines were shared and shared alike.
The no-show, Barack Obama, was a non-factor. His name came up once in the context of tax cuts, but he absorbed no long-distance barbs.
And when he returns to Iowa today he'll find the caucus campaign much the way he left it. Thursday's debate gave Democrats much of what they wanted to hear, but it didn't change a close race they have four months to decide.
Todd Dorman can be reached at (515) 243-0138 or at todd.dorman@lee.net
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
