Clinton’s Substance Trumps Obama’s Style in Austin Debate

In his CapitolAnnex post, Vince Leibowitz agrees with the conclusion I reached last night in my Katalusis post that Hillary Clinton won the debate in Austin hands down.

Arguing that Clinton had more substance than Obama, Leibowitz provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the policy differences between the two candidates, beginning with a question about the economy (Text from Leibotwitz's post at CapitolAnnex is shown below in blue):

Check Obama’s answer:

OBAMA: Well, first of all, let me emphasize the point that you just made, which is: You don’t need an economist or the Federal Reserve to tell the American people that the economy’s in trouble, because they’ve been experiencing it for years now. Everywhere you go, you meet people who are working harder for less, wages and incomes have flatlined, people are seeing escalating costs of everything from health care to gas at the pump. And so people have been struggling for a long time. In some communities, they have been struggling for decades now. So this has to be a priority of the next president.

In that first part of the answer, Obama pulled a classic move that high school debaters are taught: when you are unsure how to respond to the question or are trying to formulate your response, restate the question and expound on the question and offer some generalities, i.e., “this has to be a priority of the next president.”

Read, now, the remainder of Obama’s answer, followed by intermittent commentary from CapitolAnnex:

Now, what I’ve said is that we have to restore a sense of fairness and balance to our economy, and that means a couple of things. Number one, with our tax code: We’ve got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and invest those tax breaks in companies that are investing here in the United States of America.

Standard, boilerplate stuff–what you’d expect. Then, more of what you’d expect:

We have to end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy…and to provide tax breaks to middle-class Americans and working Americans who need them. So I’ve said that if you are making $75,000 a year or less, I want to give an offset to your payroll tax that will mean $1,000 extra in the pockets of ordinary Americans. Senior citizens making less than $50,000, you shouldn’t have to pay income tax on your Social Security. We pay for these by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated.

There is some substance there, but it isn’t all that substantial: end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, give middle class tax breaks.

More:

On our trade deals, I think it is absolutely critical that we engaged in trade, but it has to be viewed not just through the lens of Wall Street, but also Main Street, which means we’ve got strong labor standards and strong environmental standards and safety standards, so we don’t have toys being shipped in the United States with lead paint on them.

Again, generalities and visuals, i.e., “Wall Street, but also Main Street.” Notes bringing in strong labor standards, etc., but doesn’t give much detail and then mentions a hot-button issue like lead-tainted toys. Lots of style, little substance.

Then, check this out, later in the response that rambled on a good bit:

The question people are going to have to ask is: How do we get it done? And it is my strong belief that the changes are only going to come about if we’re able to form a working coalition for change. Because people who were benefiting from the current tax code are going to resist. The special interests and lobbyists are going to resist. And I think it has to be a priority for whoever the next president is to be able to overcome the dominance of the special interests in Washington, to bring about the kinds of economic changes that I’m talking about.

“Coalition for change,” “special interests,” “lobbyists,” all buzzwords. But no specifics on the “kinds of economic changes [Obama is] talking about.”

Then check out Clinton’s response:

CLINTON: Well, I would agree with a lot that Senator Obama just said, because it is the Democratic agenda.

All Obama did was essentially recite party-line-platform points, and Clinton summed that up in one sentence.

Then, more:

CLINTON: We are going to rid the tax code of these loopholes and giveaways. We’re going to stop giving a penny of your money to anybody who ships a job out of Texas, Ohio or anywhere else to another country. We’re certainly going to begin to get the tax code to reflect what the needs of middle class families are so we can rebuild a strong and prosperous middle class.

You know, the wealthy and the well-connected have had a president the last seven years, and I think it’s time that the rest of America had a president to work for you every single day.
Clinton offers more specifics earlier in her response: (1)close the tax loopholes, end corporate giveaways; (2) end incentives and tax credits for outsourcing jobs to foreign countries; (3) reform the tax code to reflect the needs of middle class families. Yes, Obama said “tax breaks,” but that is different from a reform of the tax code. A tax-break implies a one-time deal or provision that must be renewed. Clinton implies actual reform.

More differences:

We will also have a different approach toward trade. We’re going to start having trade agreements that not only have strong environmental and labor standards, but I want to have a trade time-out. We’re going to look and see what’s working and what’s not working, and I’d like to have a trade prosecutor to actually enforce the trade agreements that we have before we enter into any others.

We’re also going to put much tougher standards in place so that people cannot import toys with lead paint, contaminated pet food, contaminated drugs into our market. We’re going to have much more vigorous enforcement of safety standards.

Specifics galore: (1) strong environmental and labor standards (yes, Obama mentioned that, too); (2) a trade “time-out;” (3) re-examination and evaluation of existing trade agreements; (4) trade prosecutor to enforce existing trade agreements; (5) no more trade agreements until we enforce what we have.

More from Senator Clinton:

CLINTON: Now, in addition, there are steps I would take immediately. One is on this foreclosure crisis. I have been saying for nearly a year we had to crack down on the abusive practices of the lenders. But we also need a moratorium on home foreclosures.

Everywhere I go, I meet people who either have been or about to lose their home. 85,000 homes in foreclosure in Texas; 90,000 in Ohio. I’ve met the families: the hairdresser, the single mom who’s going to lose her home, the postal worker who got really hoodwinked into an agreement that wasn’t fair to him.

So I would put a moratorium for 90 days, to give us time to work out a way for people to stay in their homes, and I would freeze interest rates for five years. Because these adjustable-rate mortgages, if they keep going up, millions of Americans are going to be homeless. And vacant homes will be across the neighborhoods of Texas and America.

Again, Obama has a teaspoon full of actual plans, Clinton has an overflowing bucket: (1) foreclosure moratorium; (2) interest rate freeze on adjustable rate mortgages; (3) crack down on the practices of abusive lenders.

Still, more:

CLINTON: Now, in addition, there are three ways we need to jump start the economy.

Clean green jobs; I’ve been promoting this. I wanted it to be part of the stimulus package. I thought a $5 billion investment in clean green jobs would put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work helping to create our future.

We also need to invest in our infrastructure. We don’t have enough roads to take care of the congestion, we have crumbling bridges and tunnels. We need to rebuild America, and that will also put people to work.

And, finally, we need to end George Bush’s war on science, which has been waged against scientists and researchers…
Again, Clinton offers solutions while Obama offers rhetoric: (1) clean green jobs as part of the stimulus package ($5 billion investment); (2) additional investments in infrastructure; (3) end the GOP war on science.

Too, Clinton touches on specific, progressive issues that Obama never really seems to bother with. For one, infrastructure needs and the correlation that this will also help put Americans to work. And, the “war on science,” which includes not only stem cell research but a variety of other scientific arenas the GOP has screwed–or attempted to screw–with.

Read More