Dems Go Toe to Toe in NYC Debate

NEW YORK—Retired general Wesley Clark joined the Democratic presidential candidates in debate for the first time last night.

The 10 candidates drew sharp contrasts between their policies on trade, taxes, health care and national security in their third debate, held at Pace University yesterday.

For Clark, who entered the race a mere nine days ago, the debate marked one of his first opportunities to stake out stances on the issues. And the former NATO commander—a registered Republican until recently who voted for Nixon and Reagan—was immediately pressed to defend his Democratic credentials.

He seized on the first question to assail Bush’s record, saying Bush embodies “neither [the] conservatism or [the] compassion” that he espoused during his campaign. Clark said he embraces the core Democratic platform, noting that he is pro-choice, favors affirmative action, environmental protection, comprehensive health care coverage and involving our allies in multilateral foreign policy.

“As I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out,” he said. “There was only one party to come to.”

But Clark was light on specific policy proposals, falling back on the fact that he has been in the race just over a week and promising to come forward with concrete initiatives soon.

Despite preaching the virtues of training their guns on President Bush, the other candidates’ rhetoric evolved at times into biting personal attacks and sharp policy disputes with their competitors on stage yesterday.

In a particularly heated exchange, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., identified former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean with Newt Gingrich in describing Dean’s support for a Gingrich-backed Medicare cut in 1994.

“You’ve been saying for many months that you’re the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” Gephardt stated. “I think you’re just winging it.”

Dean fired back angrily, defending his record on health care with reference to his medical degree.

“That is flat-out false, and I’m ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich,” he responded. “I’ve done more for health insurance, Dick Gephardt, frankly, than you ever have, because I’ve delivered it to a lot of seniors and a lot of young people—and I’ll stake my record on health insurance against anybody up here.”

Despite promising at one point not to incite “internecine warfare” among fellow Democrats, Dean was at the center of a few other pointed disputes during the debate, exchanging jabs with rival Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., on trade policy and tax cuts and accusing Gephardt, Kerry and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., of distorting his record.

Across the Spectrum

For a party in search of a winning message for the 2004 election, the contentious debate highlighted the fault lines between third-way centrist Democrats like Lieberman and liberals such as Dean.

But in a debate focused on economic policy—cohosted by CNBC and The Wall Street Journal—liberals and moderates alike sought to trade on the economic success of the Clinton Administration in laying out plans for future prosperity.

“I know that within the next hour we’ll say that Bill Clinton walked on water,” the Rev. Al Sharpton joked.

The war continued to be a divisive issue as the candidates considered the size, if any, of a future U.S. commitment to the rebuilding of Iraq. Most sought to avoid committing whether or not they would pledge the $87 billion Bush has requested.

Only the most liberal candidates—Sharpton and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio—said they would send no money, and only Dean and Lieberman said they were willing to send the full $87 billion. The other six candidates hedged, conceding the need to send money and stressing the importance of supporting the troops while remaining skeptical of the hefty price tag.

While the contenders agreed on the necessity of rolling back the portions of the Bush tax cut targeted at the rich—accusing Bush of promulgating a “tax shift” that unfairly burdens lower and middle-class Americans—they differed on the merits of retaining parts of the plan aimed at the middle-class. Kerry defended middle-class tax breaks, joined by centrists Lieberman and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., while Gephardt and Dean assailed keeping any part of the Bush tax plan.

“Washington politicians [promise] people everything,” Dean said. “Tell the truth—we cannot afford all of the tax cuts, the health insurance, special ed and balancing the budget, and we have to do those things.”

Trade policy proved one of the afternoon’s most controversial issues. Gephardt, the former house majority leader with deep support among unions, distanced himself from the crowd by trumpeting his record of opposing major trade agreements, emphasizing the importance of furthering “fair” trade rather than free trade. He expressed his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the extension of Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China.

“Most everybody here voted for NAFTA, voted for the China agreement,” he said. “I did not—I led the fight against it.”

Although most contenders reaffirmed their commitment to human rights, labor and environment provisions in future free trade agreements, that pledge plainly had different meanings for the various candidates.

For Kucinich, the inequity in such standards means his first act as president will be to withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO.

But the moderates criticized such policies as backwards, claiming it would undermine the goal of creating jobs and growing the economy.

“I’m not insensitive to the jobs, I’m desperately concerned about those jobs, but you don’t fix them by pandering to people and telling them you’re going to shut the door,” Kerry said. “Democrats can’t love jobs and hate the people who create them.”

On health care, the candidates identified what Clark called a “crisis” in a country with 41 million uninsured, but presented divergent plans for shoring up the nation’s health care system, ranging from Gephardt’s $228-billion-a-year program to fund employer-based insurance to more limited and less costly coverage proposals. They also tackled the issue of soaring prescription drug costs, with Graham, Lieberman and Kucinich backing drug reimportation plans and Sharpton and Dean warning congressional Democrats not to settle for the current compromise plan under consideration in Congress.

And on the topic of politics’ notorious third rail—social security—most of the Democrats declined to back private stock market investment as a solution to the system’s impending financial crunch. Only Clark expressed support for a private investment program, and even he insisted it must be in addition to, rather than instead of, the guaranteed solvency of the system in general.

Other Democrats underscored the importance of improving the economy and encouraging private saving in staving off a social security crisis. They all refused to back increasing the program’s eligibility age past the current 67.

“We have a train wreck coming…the onslaught of the baby boomers,” Edwards said. “What we ought to do is help people save.”

A Frenzied Pace

While the dust settled on the debate floor and the bright T.V. lights dimmed, a crowded gymnasium next door sprung to life.

An estimated 350 members of the press corps swarmed a candidates entrance, necks craned and tape recorders extended in hopes of catching a shot or sound byte of the news-makers.

Spin doctors worked their way through the crowd, casting and recasting the debate in their candidates favor.

And outside of the gymnasium the pundits took to the air and wire.

Harvard made its most prominent appearance of the afternoon, on the Associated Press (AP), which quoted Institute of Politics Director and Clinton Cabinet Secretary Dan R. Glickman.

“Wesley Clark escaped the venom of the rest of the candidates,” Glickman told the AP. “I don’t know if they’re nervous about him or if his poll numbers are so high they’re afraid to attack him.”

Meanwhile, campus spin-doctors-in-training did their part.

Gregory A. Elinson ’04, co-president of Harvard Students for Howard Dean, said he wasn’t losing sleep over the threat Clark poses to his candidate.

“I actually think that Clark and Dean are pretty complimentary—there strengths are clearly separate,” Elinson said. “I think the fact that Kerry and Gephardt were attacking [Dean]cements his status as the man to beat.”

—Staff writer Stephen M. Marks can be reached at marks@fas.harvard.edu.