AFL-CIO Democratic Primary Debate: The LiveBlog

5:48 The debate doesn't actually start until 6, but man, the pre-debate discussion is getting nasty! Tucker questioned Joe Biden's statement in support of unions and the freedoms they've ensured working-class Americans, and Bill Press, an union member himself, defended the statement — which led to a hard snap from Tucker about how much he hates unions because he's a bad American. Well, that's not quite what he said, but that's how I heard it. He may have also mentioned something about rights coming from the Bill of Rights, not unions, but I think he misses the point. There have been many social movements that have been crucial in ensuring the rights that the Bill of Rights has on paper. Even Pat Buchanan had nicer things to say about unions than Tucker, and that's saying something. (Buchanan talking about the power of corporations and how necessary unions are to counteract that is pretty much something surreal.)

5:57 Following up on our fascinating profiles of MSNBC anchors, Chris Matthews is in favor of reindustrializing America, so people can have the opportunity to build Big Things. This stuff going on before the debate may actually yield more new information than anything we hear in the debate.

6:00 OK, time for the left-to-right introductions: Richardson, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich. First we get a welcome from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. (And yes, if you were wondering, Gravel is notably absent. Apparently all attendees had to fill out a questionnaire, and neither Gravel nor any of the Republican candidates submitted a questionnaire.) Dodd gets the first question, on Minnesota.

6:06 The question was on what we should not be investing in to instead support infrastructure. Dodd starts by telling everyone he's an union man, and then brings up... missile defense? Really? He makes it sound like a campaign pitch, and I'm not really sold on the efficacy of people turning debate answers into stump speeches. Clinton gets the second question, and goes just as far outside of its bounds as Dodd does. She's talking about creating jobs, she's talking about homeland security. Obama gets asked what else we are not prepared for. He believes we're not safer now than we were before 9/11. I would *love* to hear something new at these debates. Are we seriously expecting that the answers to these questions are somehow going to change in the two-week span between debates? Or is there just not enough to discuss? Perhaps we as Americans are doing so fantastically well that we only have a limited set of topics that we honestly need to discuss to better the country. That, or we need to get the LWV to run debates again.

6:11 Hey, Joe B, did Congress drop the ball on infrastructure? Joe: I didn't! Check out all these bills I proposed both before and after 9/11! Easy chance to Republican-bash right there. Edwards sticks with the populist message, saying that we don't want to trade one set of insiders for another and again calling for the refusal of lobbyist money, a topic which Olbermann hints we haven't heard the last of.

6:14 Kucinich gets asked about doing things like subsidizing stadiums for corporate-owned sports teams and the like instead of spending that money on infrastructure; Kucinich says instead of subsidizing stadiums, cities should be buying the teams. Cute. Ooh — there was a plan behind that! Turns out Soldier Stadium was built on Obama's watch. Olbermann asks him if it was the right call, and Obama, of course, says yes, citing increased jobs and the like. Not as good a zinger as it could've been, I guess. Richardson thanks union members for their money — "I will continue to take your financial support." Turns out everybody thought that was a pretty funny line. Except for Richardson. Richardson and Kucinich both spent a good deal of time trying to convince the audience that they're the workers' candidate. Does that every do anything other than sound forced and ring hollow?

6:19 Clinton gets the beat-up-on-NAFTA question. Goes ahead and beats up on Bush for the trade agreements he agreed to as well. Then, everyone on the record: should we keep NAFTA or scrap it? 30 seconds to answer, which seems like a bad idea — give them an inch... Richardson says scrap, and also gets applause for bringing up OSHA. Obama says amend, not scrap. Tsk, tsk, Senator. That won't play with the crowd. That's probably the first time he's spoken that the crowd isn't cheering wildly. I think that threw him; he seemed a little off his game by the end of that question. Biden was for creating jobs — uh, I think that's an amend? Dodd is pro-worker and anti-outsourcing — I assume that's a scrap? They're not making this easy. Edwards, um, I think is also for changing? Doesn't get much recognition for saying you'll never see him on the cover of Fortune as the pro-business candidate. "Hey, I don't suck as much as Republicans!" Hmm. Kucinich: "you asked a direct question, you deserve a direct answer." Hey, at least I'm sure livebloggers everywhere thank you, Denny K. "People on the stage couldn't give you a direct answer because they can't give you one; they don't want to scrap it." Well, we know who's getting the applause now. Olbermann has pretty much given up on curbing the applause. Clinton gets a 30-second reply because of a snipe at her; says she notes that a lot of campaigns have been using her name lately (frontrunner zing!), and that she's working for a united Democratic party that can beat the Republicans. Hey, I've heard that message somewhere before...

6:28 Obama asked how you convince working-class Americans to buy American when it's more expensive; says nobody wants a cheaper T-shirt when they're losing a job in the process. Tell that to Wal-Mart, Senator. Then another 30-second round: is China an ally or an adversary? Richardson and Obama say they're a competitor, and focus on economic influence. Biden says neither, but they own the mortgage on our home. We owe nearly a trillion — jeez! — dollars to them. Hillary Clinton gives Biden an "Amen," says he's 100% right — way to steal the positive, Senator. Clearly Obama hasn't been using it any more. Dodd tells us not to forget that they're also investing lots of money on military infrastructure, and that puts them solidly in "adversary" territory. Edwards points out the human rights violations in China, and how we are giving them a pass. Kucinich says that the time to worry about China's economic influence was back when some on stage voted for Favored Nation status. Oh, another yuk from Denny K! — "When I was a child, we used to think that if we dug a hole deep enough we'd get to China. We're there." I lol'ed. Aaaand a commercial break! *breathe*

6:37 We're back. The subject is now Iraq. My fingers are going to huuuuurt... To Richardson: if we withdraw from Iraq and al-Quaeda takes control, what then? We do what we need to do to ensure American security. Talks about . Obama, same question: if we'd followed my judgement, we wouldn't be here in the first place. Now we have bad options, and worse options. Only way we can avoid the problem is to begin a phased redeployment; we can keep troops in the region outside of Iraq. Way to dodge, Senator. Personal opinion: Obama is not doing well. Biden: it matters how we get out of Iraq, and I'm the only one with a detailed plan. Separate parties, organized central government, etc. Clinton echoes some of that: we have to get out smarter than they got in. Need a concerted diplomatic effort to assure stability. But if al-Quaeda can get a foothold, we need to ensure that we can keep them on the run. Dodd: first, credit to the troops. They haven't failed us; our administration has. As far as stability in the area, cites things like why we're still subsidizing Saudi Arabia. Edwards says he'd do what GWB hasn't, and have a plan ready for what happens if it does go bad in Iraq. Kucinich: we need to get the troops out of Iraq. There were a whole lot of dodges in that one, probably because the only politically correct answer to "what happens if al-Quaeda takes over" is "we beat up on al-Quaeda;" nobody wants to hear "we let them slide," but no one wants to hear "we have to commit militarily again" either. That's a rough one. I have the funny feeling that we're going to be hearing that question a lot more in the general election.

6:44 Next up, Obama gets asked why it took so long for him to decide on how he'd vote for the war supplemental. He points out that it's hard to send a message to an obstinate President. Man, we probably should've pushed that message a year ago. Takes a swing at "some on the stage" that had to be "convinced" about Iraq.

6:47 Dodd edges a little toward hard-line, pointing out that there are problems in the region that we need to focus on and taking a swipe at Obama for unilateral entry into Pakistan. Obama gets a response, and absolutely bulldogs Dodd. Jeez. "Hard to believe that those who were involved in the worst foreign policy blunder... would criticize me for my decisions." Clinton also gets a response, and sticks with policy and says that presidential candidates shouldn't engage in hypotheticals. Dodd gets a response, and says to Obama that he understands that the 2002 authorization was a mistake, but he admitted it because people should admit when they make mistakes, and Dodd thinks it's a mistake to suggest unilateral entry into Pakistan. Obama breaks in and "volunteers" a response, which Olbermann has little choice but to accept, trying to say that that's not what he was advocating. Olbermann finally calls off the brawl, and goes to commercial break.

6:55 Time for questions from the audience. First, a question from a widow from the mine accident in Sago last year. She feels Bush has sacrificed the welfare of workers by cutting worker protections. She asks what should be done about that. Biden gives a shout out to the mine workers' union president in the audience, and then cuts back to the Iraq discussion. Ouch. Doing that to a question posed by the widow of a dead mine worker is probably not the wisest thing to do. Talks about how everybody on stage is giving misinformation, and how we're already by law going into Pakistan if we find intelligence calling for it. Gets heckled for it.

Kucinich gets asked a softball on union busting; easy for any Democrat, and easier for someone who can flash his AFL-CIO creds like Kucinich. Richardson gets asked a frankly moving question from an Iraq War veteran who came home to find his job outsourced to Mexico. These are softball questions with predictable answers, but the questions are likely more important than the answers. They come across as very frank and honest, and they're much more powerful than a talking snowman on YouTube. Dodd gets asked an Internet question. Edwards gets asked a question on unions and health care. Boy, that's the question to ask Edwards. He pushes his universal health plan, and then gets tons of audience support for stumping on his time on picket lines and forming unions; says speeches are great, but go with who's been with you in the crunch. Clinton gets another Internet question, on how people "assured" health care will be able to afford that without going broke. I'm pretty sure nowhere in her answer did she actually answer the question. Pretty good pro-labor stump, though. Trying to combat Edwards' positive response, I suppose. One from Obama on the floor, regarding undocumented workers. Rock on — he actually answers the question. Thank you, Senator! I'm sure you guys have already heard the answer: enforcing employer restrictions, giving a path to citizenship. Aw, man, never mind. Takes the last bit of time to stump on labor as well. If there's anything worse than shilling to the audience, it's me-too shilling.

7:08 Biden gets a nurses' union question, and goes back to stumping pro-labor, of course. Snipes at Edwards — that's a tough one — trying to call him out on citing the number of picket lines he's been on, and saying more important is walking when it matters. Kucinich gets to talk about healthcare. Edwards gets a response to Biden's snipe, and also gets called out on his being from a right-to-work state. He says, yes, he is, and he's been a leader on labor despite being from a state with a very small percentage of labor importance, just like Joe Biden. Dodd gets an energy question, and talks about mile-per-gallon standards, taxing polluters, and the other usual suspects. Clinton gets an education question, and starts with the energy issue before going back to bashing No Child Left Behind. And then another break.

7:20 Lightning round! Woo! Richardson gets another chance to say that anyone on stage would make a great vice-president for him. Clinton gets asked about income inequality, and again strays to beat the ground pro-labor. Obama gets asked about contribution bundling; corrects Olbermann pointing out that he doesn't take bundler money. Edwards: how are trial lawyer contributions better than lobbyist contributions? When lawyers give money to the jury, it's called a bribe; when lobbyists give money to Congress, it's called money. Biden: would you choose a Republican to a cabinet position? He'd consider it. We can't be split into blue and red; we can't go for 51% solutions. Pretty good answer. Dodd: there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11; does that mean the Department of Homeland Security was a success? Says no; we are less safe. Of course. Kucinich: what have you actually done to help? Kucinich wants to lead; cites a bunch of bills he's filed, which I suppose does try to "lead" in a particular ideological direction but I'm not sure counts for anything actually getting done. Obama: would you honor Barry Bonds? Really, this is a question? Obama says, well, first he has to hit one more. (Zing!) Then he talks about how he met — I missed that, did he say Hank Aaron? — and how sports should be about positive role models. Olbermann: "Is that a yes or a no?" Two points to Keith. Obama confirms that he didn't answer, and that's about it for him. Clinton gets asked about Louisiana — softball, of course. Biden asked about whether he'd end no-bid contracts. Boy, Biden gets a lot of mileage out of this: "Yes." Cheers from the audience. "You have another 20 seconds to answer, sir." He just stands and smiles. Richardson gets asked if he's concerned that the race to replace him would begin shortly after he took office. I think he missed the point; he says it would, but he's there to unite America. Obama also gets asked, and gets the point: campaigns last too long and cost too much. Biden also gets asked the same question, and takes a different tack: no, it wouldn't bother me. I would do my job well, and so America would support me. Same to Clinton: I'll be too busy to worry about that. Talks about cleaning up government. Same to Dodd; Olbermann laments that he's the only one concerned about long elections. Dodd says no, we're all concerned, but that would be mitigated if Americans weren't so upset, which they wouldn't be if government did its job. To Edwards, the same question; he turns it toward health care and tells his cleft palate story again. Kucinich, same question: "I'm the Seabiscuit of this campaign, so when I come from behind to win, everyone's going to say, 'no way we're running against this guy!'" At least he's funny. Aaand that wraps it up! Time for the spin room.

7:40 OK, what the heck, we'll cover some punditry. Where do these guys come from, and what debate they were watching? They thought Obama did well? "Obama definitely had the crowd." That was the problem — he had the crowd; he lost the crowd. Whenever I find myself siding more with Buchanan than the others, I start questioning my sanity. (EDIT: Maybe the blogosphere got a different edition sent to their TVs than the pundits did. A little Googling led me to this blogger that seemed to see a debate much more similar to the one I saw than the one the MSNBC pundits did.) He did say that Kucinich had a lot of zingers in there, and a lot of direct answers that the crowd liked. They say that he overshadowed Edwards, and that I'm not sure I buy. I think the mantle of "pro-labor" was not clearly assigned, but that's a big difference. Buchanan snaps at Edwards for the Forbes line, and says Clinton was not too strident and kept it positive — OK, somebody fill me in on when Buchanan got some smarts. "I admire your intellect; I find it strikingly resembles my own." OK, that's a horrible butchery of a 1984 quote. Eh, I'm not too worried; it's been about 5 minutes; I'm sure Buchanan will say something crazy here to make up for it any second now.

7:46 The punditry spent a little time looking at the heated exchange between Obama, Dodd, and Clinton on Iraq as well. Oddly, outside of the regular Obama shill in the punditry (don't recall the guy's name, but I've never seen him say a negative thing about Obama yet, and I've covered every Democratic debate so far this campaign cycle), opinions were pretty different from the judgements on the debate as a whole. Buchanan thought Clinton won the argument back in D.C., but Obama won the stadium, which I'll buy; the ex-Mayor of San Francisco which was serving as the third pundit (who first called the debate for Obama) said that Clinton won that exchange overall, which I'll also buy. I suppose I just weigh that exchange more heavily in my final decision about the debate than they do. I think folks will not remember the "grind" of the debate, and only the highlights will stick in their head; that exchange was by far the most exciting and heated part of the debate, and I think more people will base their opinions on that exchange than on any other part of the debate.

7:55 Oh, now that's interesting. They've got campaign representatives for the top three candidates on stage now, and are questioning them on the debate. This should be fun. Let's see how well these folks can do message control on the fly.

For those of you that don't keep up with campaign communications staff as closely as ridiculous communications geeks like me, here's the players:

Howard Wolfson - Clinton communications director
David Axelrod - Obama's chief campaign consultant
David Bonior - Edwards campaign manager

And I'll tell you something — you can tell that the Clintons have the money and connections, because Howard Wolfson is good. He takes both Axelrod and Bonior for a ride. He knows he's not the candidate, and he can take the other two candidates and their representatives to task for any missteps. He beats up on Axelrod, and even more strongly on Congressman Bonior, for talking about Democrats not attacking Democrats, and then going on to attack Clinton for various positions. Interestingly, Wolfson's attack was strongest against Bonior, though one would be hard pressed to say Edwards attacked Clinton more than Obama did. The Obama-Clinton coldness has been very obvious for a while now. I can't help but think that that was a calculated decision by Wolfson. Axelrod gets an assist from Chris Matthews, though, when Chris points out that on his show Wolfson talked about Obama making nice-nice with Holocaust deniers (referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Wolfson responded that he never said that Democrats shouldn't attack Democrats; the other two had, and they should live up the their standards. Axelrod with the zinger: "So you're saying we should live up to our standards, and not sink down to yours." FTW! Nice one, David. Then they all make nice at the end, in that macho-hug sort of way that says that they really loathe each other but can't possibly show that on TV. That's enough for me; this liveblog is officially done. Comment it up, folks!

EDIT 8:50 OK, OK, one more thing: the fact-check team at MSNBC just came back, and on the most contentious point of the debate, the criticism by Dodd that Obama shouldn't advocate unilateral action and Obama's denial that he did so, the fact-checkers came down on the side of Dodd, saying Obama had tried to misrepresent his earlier statements. Ouch! ...OK, I'm tearing myself away from the TV now. No, really, I mean it this time.