Obama, Clinton face off in what could be their last debate

By Steven Thomma
MCT
Published on: 04/16/08

WASHINGTON — After weeks of sniping at each other from a distance, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama meet face to face tonight in what could be their last debate.

The showdown, at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, will be televised from 8 to 9:30 EDT on ABC. ABC News anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos will moderate.

Tonight's clash comes at a crucial time, with Obama still the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination but trailing Clinton in opinion polls in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next Tuesday. Obama also is facing new questions about how thoroughly he's been vetted and the debate is likely to include some of the flash points and revelations that have dominated the increasingly nasty campaign in recent weeks.

Among them: Obama's remarks that working-class Pennsylvanians were clinging to religion and guns out of bitterness about their economic standing, his relationship with a pastor seen in videotapes damning the United States and Clinton's efforts to capitalize on both to revive her campaign.

After gaining on Clinton in Pennsylvania, where a come-from-behind win would create enormous pressure on her to quit the race, polls suggest that Obama has stalled there.

"There is pressure on him to rebound," said Larry Rasky, a veteran Democratic strategist.

Obama's key challenge tonight is to connect with working-class voters, particularly white working-class voters.

He's long had a hard time winning them away from Clinton, and he's been newly hammered for his comments that critics charged linked such voters' embrace of religion and guns to such negative values as xenophobia.

While Obama tried photo ops such as bowling — Clinton tried a shot and a beer — he needs to make a more substantive connection with a populist economic message, more John Edwards than Adlai Stevenson, Rasky argued.

"He needs to step up and show he's on their side," Rasky said.

A new poll of likely primary voters by Quinnipiac University found Clinton stopping Obama's gains on her and holding on to a lead of 50-44 percent, but it also indicated that she hadn't gained anything from her effort to portray Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. The poll of 2,103 likely voters conducted over the weekend had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

"She seems to have halted the erosion of whites and white women in particular," said Clay Richards, the assistant director of the Polling Institute at the Connecticut university.

"She even gained back some ground in the Philadelphia suburbs, the area where elections are won and lost in the Keystone State."

Watch for both candidates to be asked about guns, an issue they've largely avoided so far.

Democrats generally have shied away from the issue of gun control for several years, seeing it as a political loser. Clinton and Obama also have shied away from talking about a big Supreme Court case on gun control in Washington, D.C.

The issue could be even riskier in Pennsylvania, home to nearly 1 million licensed hunters. The politically active National Rifle Association has 250,000 members in Pennsylvania, more than in any other state.

But Obama's remarks could force the issue into the debate, especially on the one-year anniversary of the massacre at Virginia Tech university and in a city whose violence has earned it the unflattering nickname "Killadelphia."

Clinton faces challenges as well.

First, the New York senator has to press her case against Obama without inviting a backlash from Democrats weary of fighting. She was hissed at in Pittsburgh this week when she ripped the Illinois senator, though it isn't known whether that came from her supporters, neutral Democrats or Obama supporters.

Also, she'll probably be pressed to explain her story about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, which proved to be untrue. She said she misspoke. Her husband said last week that she'd said it one time late at night, though McClatchy reported that she'd said it repeatedly, day and night.

It will be the 21st time that Clinton and Obama have debated over the yearlong campaign but the first time they've faced each other since a debate Feb. 26 in Cleveland.

It also could be the last.

While Clinton — still the underdog for the nomination — readily accepted another debate proposed for April 27 in North Carolina, Obama hasn't yet committed. Aides say that he wants to wait to see what happens with the Pennsylvania primary next week before agreeing.

Obama's controversial comment, from the Web site Huffington Post:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So ya gonna watch it? I'll try. I could use a good chuckle.

Prolly not. I've heard all they have to say. And it's on pretty early out here, so I don't think I'll be in when it's on.

2 questions:

1) Did Obama really say that he would raise capitol gains taxes, even if it meant reducing revenues to the Federal government (as history shows it would), because of "fairness?" Does that mean that actual efficiency in the tax code must yield to some nebulous idea of "punishing" the rich?

2) Did Hillary really throw "assault weapons" and "machine guns" into the same sentence on guns that ought to be banned? I thought that tactic died with CNN's famous hit piece on the issue?

I REALLY want to like Obama. The gun issue really gripes me about him (he wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which makes me think he doesn't know what one is), but fundamentally, I just cannot get past his overwhelming desire to equalize everything and make it "fair." Punishing achievement is no way to make policy, particularly where that policy relies on achievers to fund it.

Not that I was voting for either of them anyway, but that's my thoughts on the night.

I understand that ABC wanted ratings, so focusing the drama was the way to achieve that. I just really wish that they would have focused on the issues instead of rehashing the drama. I'll admit that Hillary was better in this particular exchange than Barack was, but I like how he attempted to handle the controversial questions and at least attempted to stay on message.

Unfortunately, my 2 criticisms came of the candidates speaking on the issues.

IOW, I don't buy into the drama. I don't care about Obama's pastor, or Obama's supposed "ties to socialism." I care about what he is going to do as president.

And he is apparently in favor of the DC gun ban, has in the past supported a ban on all semiautomatic weapons, and thinks that the fundamental purpose of the tax code is to impose "fairness" instead of raising revenue (which should incidentally be done "fairly). The latter to the point that he would actually raise the capitol gains tax even if it reduces revenue, because right now it's not "fair."

Why not lower the middle class tax and leave the capitol gains tax alone? Why the burning desire to punish the rich? That is a great concern to me. I am not rich, but I'd like to think I've put myself in a decent position to BECOME comfortably well off one day. I don't want my President deciding that when I achieve that, I should get whacked for my efforts on some stupid principle of "fairness."

And I own guns, and I know that Clinton's "assault weapon/machine gun" conflation and Obama's desire to ban all semiautomatics have no basis in public safety. So I don't favor reducing freedom uselessly to make ignorant people feel better.

Old tricks are still the best tricks. The fact that Obama would sacrifice revenue at the altar of class warfare is very disturbing to me. Part of me thinks he's just playing to his base, where sticking it to the rich is always a big hit. Who cares if a capital gains increase would hurt middle class slobs like me too.

The gun thing is just hot air to me. I couldn't imagine a ban on semi-automatic weapons being upheld.

Me either -- the AWB was struck down before the 5th Circuit. However, I don't want to leave it in the hands of the courts, especially when too many people simply don't know the truth because of lying politicians like Hillary Clinton pretending that assault weapons and machine guns are the same thing.

Not just raise, nearly double!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent.

Link
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But he's a smart guy.

Didn't you know he was president of the Harvard Law Review. Therefore he knows what's best for my money, and obviously it's more impotant to be "fair" than anything else.

Bingo. One think all the work she did on the Brady Bill with Feinstien and Shumaker (sp)would have taught her something.

Cutting capital gains doesn't automatically increase revenue, and the last two cuts provide no evidence that they caused changes in the revenue stream. From the CBO:



The trend in higher tax receipts did not change at all after the 1997 cuts. Also, notice that the fall in tax receipts after 2000 had already slowed by the time the 2003 cuts were passed. Neither of these cuts altered the preexisting trend.

The fact that revenue increased after a cut in the capital gains tax does not mean that the cut CAUSED the increased revenue.

And yet the two resident Democrats who support raising the capital gains rate didn't so much as mention that.

Wonder why?

Either way, they made their priorities clear. EVEN IF cutting the rate meant increased revenue and increasing it meant decreased revenue, they'd raise it anyway because "it's not fair."

That's just dumb as hell.

:dunno:

That changes the fact that capital gains cuts do not cause an increase in tax revenue how?

1) That's not a "fact." Posting a picture from a blogsite that cites to the OMB (which has HISTORICALLY over-emphasized capital gains revenue in its budget calculations, to the chagrin of economists who understand that capital gains are a volatile basis for taxation in the first place) does not prove it to be a "fact." You, of all people, should avoid such things.

2) Even if it is a "fact," their stupidity wouldn't change anything. But the alleged "fact" wouldn't change the stupidity of their economic policy, either.

It's just plain dumb to rely on achievement to fund your tax base and then punish that achievement on the basis of alleged "fairness."

Not to mention, raising capital gains tax rates hurts ALL investors (like, for example, your mother), not just "the rich."

The source is the CBO, not the blog site. The graph is from a CBO analysis. Maybe you don't trust the CBO's numbers, but that's not the same as cutting and pasting opinion from a blog as passing it off as fact.

If you question the CBO's numbers, then go find the "real" capital gains tax revenues and post them here. Just saying "I don't believe what they say because it's the CBO" isn't enough. Even assuming the CBO overestimates capital gains revenue, that bias is constant over time and cannot explain changes in reaction to the capital gains tax cuts.

To your last point, your answer is to punish working class people with higher tax rates while giving a huge tax cut to millionaires? The proportion of our mother's income due to capital gains is tiny. The overwhelming bulk of her income comes from salary that is taxed at 25%+. Meanwhile, Warren Buffett, whose income comes almost exclusively from investments, only has to pay 10% (edit: 15% tax rate) in taxes. How in the world does that make sense to you? To pretend that this would cut deep in our parent's salary is just plain silly. I doubt they would even notice a 5% increase on their capital gains taxes.

By the way, JDaveG, I thought you were a "socialist" and "Marxist" Obama supporter.

What the hell happened? nr6

That's just where class propaganda always ends up, doesn't it? If I don't support raising taxes on capital gains, I must want to soak the poor!

WHERE did I EVER say we should "punish" whatever the hell you consider "working class people" (as if the rest of us don't "work")?

Cite it for me, or stop saying that is "my answer." You know full well I have never supported any such thing.

And why don't you call and ask her if she'd appreciate a 5% increase in the capital gains tax on the eve of her retirement?

Call him a communist and we can argue about that too...... b667ur

Class warfare? YOU are the one talking about "punishing" people by increasing capital gains taxes when, in fact, the proposal simply calls for making capital gains taxed equal to other tax rates on income. The rich are being REWARDED via lower taxes, while the poor are being PUNISHED via higher taxes, by the current system once you account for the fact that capital gains represents a tiny fraction of lower/middle class earners' incomes and a large chunk of upper class earner's incomes.

If you want to lower everyone's income taxes to the 15% then fine. But the we have a budget shortfall, larger deficits, and ever-growing debt. The interest on that debt continues to pile up and eventually we have to raise taxes just to bring in the same revenue as we were. That's not a fiscally viable solution. If we're debating what the ideal world would look like if only we didn't have the war and social policies and debt, then sure that's all well and good. But given the current fiscal reality, that's not possible so it's not even worth considering. We need to raise revenue and the fair way to do that is to roll back the tax cuts on capital gains and make capital gains income taxed the same rates as other types of income.

As for our mother: You mean ask her about capital gains taxes when she can start withdrawing the money from her TAX-DEFERRED retirement accounts? I don't think she would mind a tax increase that she wouldn't pay in the first place.

You're a true Stalin-lover. 8DRTV75

Yes, class warfare. And while I am talking about "punishing," I am not FAVORABLY talking about punishing ANYONE.

FWIW, in the case of the TRULY rich (as opposed to the vast majority of people who pay the capital gains tax), the money used to acquire the assets HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED ONCE. For this reason, it is not a tax on "income," it is a tax on gains on capital. You can CALL that income, but until it is withdrawn, it is not.

So the purpose IS in fact to punish the rich, and the effect is to punish everyone who invests, which is stupid. I don't support it. You might. I don't.

That doesn't HAVE to happen.

Unless of course we want to spend, spend, spend......

You keep saying "capital gains income." If it was income under the tax code, it would be taxed AS INCOME. It's not. It's a capital gain. It's a different accounting.

She wouldn't pay it? Really? So even though they didn't tax her on her 401K contributions, they ALSO won't tax her on the withdrawals? They won't tax her on the gain once it's withdrawn (and, for example, placed in another investment vehicle for short-term use)?

No, in fact, she WILL pay tax on it. Do you know what "tax DEFERRED" (as opposed to "EXEMPT") means?

Forgot to point something out -- you are ASSuming that all of her retirement assets are in tax deferred vehicles. Not only am I not sure that is the case, I'm pretty sure it's NOT the case.

Well since we call it by a different name then it MUST be something different. :rolleyes: Just like "torture" is not the same as "enhanced interrogation techniques", because see it can't be torture if we call it something different.

If people live off of the gains from their investments then that is their income. You can call it "capital gains" instead of "salary", but it IS income nonetheless. Even the IRS refers to capital gains as INCOME:

"The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to OTHER income..."

The semantic games don't change the point that people who live off of capital gains are taxed a much lower rate than people making considerably less who live off of a salary.

Who cares that the capital has already been taxed prior to investment? The capital gains tax is on...well, you know...capital GAINS. It's not taxing the capital a second time, but simply taxing income due to gains from the investment of that capital which is conceptually no different than income given to employees via salary. Incoming wealth should be taxed the same, and it's stupid to suggest that laborers should pay a higher tax rate than people who live off of the income from the interest on their daddy's inheritance.

It's not "class warfare" to suggest that the rich should not get a tax break because they are rich.

As far as our mother's investments, I believe the 401k and other retirement accounts grow TAX FREE until her retirement. Her withdrawals from that are taxed at the regular income tax levels. So no, she wouldn't pay capital gains taxes on most of her investments, which ironically she probably would WANT to considering that the rate is so much lower than the income tax rates.

The overwhelming majority of them are tax-deferred. They don't pay enough in real capital gains taxes for it to make a difference in their income.

This is highly entertaining. Do you guys throw turkey legs at each other at Thanksgiving if politics is brought up? :P

Hello? Anyone home? Didn't want to share too much personal info on the mb eh?

I think mom should vote for McCain to protect her non-tax deferred savings. She deserves that much. She's such a great mom! :)

Mom's gonna be throwing the turkey legs this year after she hears Ramen's tax plan 45e21aaa

The problem is this: you keep talking about the rich as if they are the only people who pay capital gains tax.

In your zeal to "get" the rich, you are (apparently, by your words) willing to whack the shit out of everyone else who has to pay that tax.

FWIW, even if mom gets ALL her income from tax deferred vehicles, she will certainly keep some of that money in short term investment vehicles. Problem with that is that once it stays in one of those vehicles over a year, it becomes a "long term capital gain." So yes, she would pay the "lower" capital gains rate rather than her income tax rate once it exceeds 1 year, but she still has to pay a HIGHER capital gains rate because of the policy you support.

AND that is not indexed to inflation AT ALL, so nevermind that she gets screwed by the inflation rate to boot.

Actually, I would treat capital gains no differently than any other type of income -- progressive rates based on total income (capital gains and salary and so forth combined). So she wouldn't pay any more on the capital gains as she would on the regular income taxes.

At any rate, why shouldn't the interest earned on investments be taxed as income? How is it conceptually different from earning a salary?

I also strongly support indexing the tax thresholds to inflation AND indexing them by cost of living in each particular area. $100k in Manhattan or Chicago is not the same as $100k in Hiram, Ga., and they shouldn't be taxed as though they are.

Using that sig is wrong on levels that I don't even care to comprehend.