The Democratic debate: End of anti-war happy-talk?

Palestine

Thursday morning I got a call from a reporter working for the Christian Science Monitor on a story about Barak Obama and the Jewish vote. He was mostly interested in The Israel Factor and the Panel's analysis of Obama's strengths and weaknesses. However, he also asked about the recent controversy surrounding the "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" comment he made in Iowa. Is it significant? I said no, I thought it was over and done with. After all, I've already written about it, saying people should leave Obama alone: "What's wrong with this statement? Don't the Palestinians suffer? Don't they suffer more than the Israelis? Look at the sentence in its full context and it becomes much clearer."

I was, evidently, wrong. Obama had to deal with this exact quote in the evening, during the Democratic Presidential debate.

The host, Brian Williams asked: you said recently nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people. Do you stand by that remark?

Obama: "Keep in mind, if you have the whole thing, what it said is nobody suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, and renounce violence and get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region."

Can now move on?

Obama

Obama, according to polls, was the "clear winner" of the debate. "31% of debate watchers say Obama won. Obama, the only black candidate, was the overwhelming favorite of black debate watchers. U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton finished in second place, picked as the winner by 24% of viewers. Clinton, the only female candidate, did better among women than among men. Former U.S. Senator John Edwards finished 3rd, picked as the winner by 14%."

This poll, and those predicting he is tied with Rudi Giuliani of the Republican party, makes it even more interesting to follow the way with which he deals with questions involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Earlier this week I wrote about his address to the National Jewish Democratic Conference, but referred only briefly to a dialogue between Obama and one of those attending the conference. Here's the more detailed Q & A segment:

Q: How can you make us, as Jews, totally comfortable in addressing the issues in Israel [given the support you get from] Muslim Americans?

A:The support I have within the Jewish community probably has been much more significant than any support that I've received from the Muslim-American community?. [I] welcome and actively seek the support of the Muslim-American community as well... Those who have worked with me in Chicago, in the state legislature and now in the United States Senate will testify that I haven't just talked the talk, I've walked the walk when it comes to Israel's security.

Iran

Iran became the linchpin of debate in the last segment of Thursday's debate, and enabled the more centrist candidates to draw a sharp line between themselves and the more radical candidates (Kucinich and the comic relief of this evening, former Alaska senator Mike Gravel). Obama used this moment wisely to clarify what camp he belongs to - and it's not the radical one. He was the one tasked with defending the no-option-off-the-table formula on Iran.

"You previously said that all options are on the table respect to Iran. And I think that it's important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you're setting the stage for another war", Kucinich blamed Obama.

Obama: I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us?

Kucinich: They do not?

Obama: And to the region. I understand that. But they're in the process of developing it, and I don't think that's disputed by any experts. They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Kucinich: It is disputed by - it is disputed.

Obama: And - and there is no contradiction, Dennis, between ?

Kucinich: It is disputed.

Obama: Let me finish. There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world. But I think it is important for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.

Gravel: With respect to Iran, we've sanctioned them for 26 years. We've scared the bejesus out of them when the president says they're evil. Well, you know something? These things don't work, they don't work. We need to recognize them. And you know something, who is the greatest violator of the Non-Proliferation Treaty? The United States of America. We signed a pledge that we would begin to disarm, and we're not doing it. We're expanding our nukes. Who the hell are we going to nuke?

Brian Williams, the moderator: Senator?

Gravel: Tell me, Barack. Who - Barack, who's - who do you want to nuke?

Obama: I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise you.

Gravel: Good, good, we're safe then for a while.

Force

Senator Joe Biden, drawing an even more sharp line between the candidates (Obama included) of mainstream policies and those on the margins concluded a debate about the use of force a couple of minutes later by calling on Kucinich and Gravel to "stop all this happy talk here about the use of force doesn't make sense. The use of force in Afghanistan is justified and necessary; in Darfur, justified and necessary; in the Balkans, justified and necessary. You guys can have your happy talk, there's real life."

Can this debate mark the end of the era in which anti-war sentiments related to Iraq threatened to make the Democrats seem weak? The leading Democrats were definitely prepared to indicate that their opposition to the war in Iraq didn't make military action unacceptable in all cases (whether one believes them, that's a totally different question).

Darfur wasn't discussed in detail in the debate, but as I mentioned earlier in the week, Biden is the most daring candidate on this issue, telling the NJDC that if there's no international willingness to use force in Sudan "I'm sending American troops alone." I thought he was also quite daring on Thursday in his answer to the question on the "three nations other than Iraq" representing "the biggest threat to the United States". His choices: North Korea, Iran ? and, well, Russia (he preferred to frame it in a more polite way: "the tendency of Putin to move in a totalitarian direction").

Israel

So who are America's best friends?

"Israel has been an important ally around the world", Obama said, but only after he was asked about the Palestinians. Much better than Dennis Kucinich who demanded an " even handed" policy ? which, as I wrote on Thursday, "seems just fine to the untrained eye, but is actually a code-word which has only one meaning: I'm prepared to pressure Israel."

Clinton

I thought Clinton handled better the other responders the question of what-would-you-do-in-case-of-a-terror-attack.

Obama started by talking about first responders, then about intelligence, and was quite vague on the need to counter attack, defining it as "take potentially some action to dismantle that network".

Edwards, on the same question, was even more cautious. His second step of response will be to "find out how this happened without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in the planning" ? making the aftermath investigation more important than the actual action.

Clinton, showing she is willing to be tough when needed, and that she cant be intimidated by the anti-war movement within the party, was direct and unapologetic: "I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate." I guess that's what Biden meant when he called the others to refrain from "happy talk".