High points for Clinton and Sanders in the South Carolina Democratic debate

Expanded from a short take for CNN

Hillary Clinton was solid and Bernie Sanders turned in his best debate performance yet in Charleston last night. Can anyone deny that Democratic National Committee leaders should have allowed more debates and scheduled them on nights when more voters would watch? The sometimes sharp exchanges between the front-runners probably didn’t change many Democratic minds, but Clinton and Sanders both delivered plenty of lines that should reinforce the inclinations of voters who are supporting them or leaning in that direction.

I suspect the following moments will particularly resonate with Iowa caucus-goers, based on my conversations with hundreds of Iowa Democrats and on how I’ve seen multiple crowds react to the candidates.

Best moments for Clinton:

• Reminding viewers that she has stood up to Republicans and remains their primary target. For instance, Clinton noted that Karl Rove is running ads against her, financed by wealthy donors, because “I’m the one they don’t want to be up against.” As Bleeding Heartland argued here, electability may be Clinton’s strongest card with undecided caucus-goers. One of the Clinton television commercials currently in rotation in Iowa may be her most effective yet, showing scary clips of Republicans and depicting Clinton as “the one candidate who can stop them.”

• Hailing President Barack Obama’s key domestic and foreign policy achievements and promising to build on his legacy. All of the candidates praised Obama, but Clinton claimed the niche of the candidate most committed to defend and incrementally improve on the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank financial reform, and diplomatic efforts with Iran and Russia.

• Speaking passionately about “systemic racism” in the criminal justice system after NBC’s Lester Holt asked whether it was “perception or reality” that “black men’s lives are cheap.” Clinton’s answer went beyond the killings of unarmed African-Americans, touching on disparities in the willingness to arrest and prosecute certain crimes. Although the African-American electorate is not nearly as big a factor in Iowa as it will be in South Carolina, Iowa audiences have responded favorably when candidates have spoken about such issues. For instance, the overwhelmingly white crowd at the “Wing Ding” in August gave Clinton one of her loudest ovations when she bashed Republican candidates who have “No commitment to end the era of mass incarceration or to say, loudly and clearly, yes, black lives matter.” It’s also worth noting that black voters will be a significant presence in numerous Iowa precincts on February 1, even as the statewide electorate remains largely white.

• Closing the debate with a powerful statement of outrage over lead-poisoned water in the largely poor and majority African-American city of Flint, Michigan. Clinton should make those lines a regular part of her stump speech.

Best moments for Sanders:

• Parrying criticism on health care reform. One of Clinton’s objectives last night was to raise doubts about Sanders’ health care proposals, thereby positioning herself as the best person to build on the Affordable Care Act’s successes. Although some Democrats may agree with her that reopening the health care debate risks setting us back politically, Clinton didn’t make a convincing argument that Sanders wants to “tear up” Obamacare. Hours before Democrats took the stage in South Carolina, Sanders released a new version of his single-payer proposal. During the debate, he repeatedly evoked the dream of FDR and Harry Truman to enact universal health care, citing 29 million uninsured Americans and millions more under-insured as proof we have much more work to do. Clinton echoed her campaign’s recent warnings that the Sanders plan would raise taxes on the middle class, unlike her own ideas for expanding Obamacare. Sanders expressed disappointment that his rival would make a “Republican criticism,” arguing that money middle-class families could save on private health insurance premiums would more than compensate for higher taxes. Ezra Klein may be right that Sanders’ “long-awaited health care plan is, by turns, vague and unrealistic,” but I don’t see many Democrats as less likely to support Sanders after watching this part of the debate.

• Highlighting Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. This topic has generated the roughest patches for Clinton in previous debates, and last night was no exception. Sanders mentioned more than once that Goldman Sachs had to pay a $5 billion fine, yet saw none of its executives prosecuted and has supplied treasury secretaries for two administrations. He also questioned whether Clinton could get tough on Wall Street, having accepted $600,000 in personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

• Repeatedly returning to the problem of a “rigged” economy and “corrupt” campaign finance system. From his opening statement to his closing remarks and many times in between, Sanders reminded viewers that good ideas won’t solve this, that or the other problem unless we tackle the system that allows millionaires and billionaires to buy elections with super-PACs and allows corporations to own Congress through lobbying and campaign contributions. Similar observations have consistently been huge applause lines at Sanders campaign rallies. One of the Sanders commercials airing frequently in Iowa features the candidate saying, “There are two Democratic visions for regulating Wall Street. One says it’s okay to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do.”

Last night’s debate was hard going for Martin O’Malley. As usual, he spoke well and didn’t say a thing most Iowa Democrats would disagree with, but he failed to make a compelling case to choose him over the front-runners. In fairness to O’Malley, the moderators gave him fewer opportunities to answer questions, forcing him into the weak position of begging for speaking time.

Any comments about the Democratic presidential race are welcome in this thread. I enclose the videos of the Clinton and Sanders ads referenced above.

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • Sanders is not a socialist

    Your article claims that Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist. He’s not. He’s a self described “democratic socialist,” and the difference is as real as the difference between gold and fool’s gold.

    Socialism is about equal distribution of goods via state owned services.

    Democratic socialism is about equal distribution of opportunity, what we generally call the American Dream.

  • South Carolina Debate

    There is no chance of any of Bernie’s proposals making it through Congress. I find it sad that he is giving false hopes to millions of people. . More than sad, I find it dishonest.

  • Honesty

    If honesty is what you’re concerned about, check out this article, written by Bill Moyers and Michael Kinship. The title is, “Tell the Truth about Bernie’s Health Care Stand.”

    http://commondreams.org/views/2016/01/16/tell-truth-about-bernies-health-care-stand

    And this, from Bill’s Clinton’s former secretary of labor Robert Reich, “Six Responses to Bernie Skeptics”:

    2. “He couldn’t get any of his ideas implemented because Congress would reject them.”

    If both house of Congress remain in Republican hands, no Democrat will be able to get much legislation through Congress, and will have to rely instead on executive orders and regulations. But there’s a higher likelihood of kicking Republicans out if Bernie’s “political revolution” continues to surge around America, bringing with it millions of young people and other voters, and keeping them politically engaged.

    http://commondreams.org/views/2016/01/18/six-responses-bernie-skeptics

    • I completely agree

      that neither Clinton nor Sanders could get their proposals through Congress. I totally disagree that there is a higher likelihood of kicking Republicans out with Bernie at the top of the ticket. The House will be in Republican control at least until after the 2020 round of redistricting.

      One thing we do know is that the next president is likely to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices. I don’t want that to be a Republican. That’s why I am inclined to caucus for the candidate I consider more electable.

    • Electability

      I think there should be no doubt that Hillary is more electable. Especially against the republican buffoons. She is so knowledgeable and deft at foreign affairs and policy that she would embarrass them in a debate. I feel like Bernie, and I like Bernie don’t get me wrong here, I feel like he would not be able to articulate well on foreign policy and I feel like he would answer with economics.

  • Lots of dig whistling

    I doubt many minds were changed if people came in to the debate solidly Clinton or Sanders, but for folks still on the fence, the debate has brought up a lot of questions, especially when it comes to the crux of the choice between pragmatics and philosophy. I’ve spoken to folks genuinely feeling torn between these elements of both candidates. And, I think for folks who deeply love Obama, Hillary’s invocation of and promise to continue his success is very convincing.

  • Molly Ivins: "I will not support Hillary Clinton for president"

    As far as Hillary Clinton’s purported expertise on foreign affairs, I would have a hard time voting for someone who supported America’s entry into the Iraq War. The decision to go to war with Iraq is the greatest foreign policy disaster in the last 15 years. Sanders voted against our entry into Iraq.

    I have to admit that I am not someone who deeply loves Obama. I’ve been disappointed in his willingness to stand up to the banking industry and for selecting Timothy Geithner (yet another Goldman Sachs alum) as secretary of the treasury instead of Elizabeth Warren. I’m troubled by the drone strikes. I’m unimpressed with his support of TARP. Arne Duncan’s Race to the Top has been an extension of the standardized testing testing that punishes school with large numbers of English language learners and low-income students. And the warrantless spying on Americans has been something he has supported lock, stock, and barrel.

    Yes, he has done some great things. But he has offered overly cautious leadership when we have needed someone bold.

    I supported Obama in the 2008 primary. I made over 250 phone calls to people! But I feel like a sucker for having done so given that he has been so friendly to corporations. I’m not interested in supporting a continuation of this sort of “success”. No more Republican-lite for me.

    The excerpt below is from Molly Ivins’ article “I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.” It was written in 2006. And it rings true today.

    “Oh come on, people — get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war — from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily. . . .Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can’t get up and fight, we’ll find someone who can.”

  • Correction

    I meant to write: “I’ve been disappointed in the lack of his willingness”.

Comments