Who won the Democratic debate?

Jen Psaki: Klobuchar capitalizes on Buttigieg-Warren skirmish

It took more than an hour for the candidates to take off their gloves at the final Democratic debate of 2019. And it was a continuation of the twitter battle between Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg over transparency at fundraisers and personal wealth. Warren called out the South Bend Mayor for hosting a closed-door fundraiser in a wine cave and courting rich donors, and Buttigieg called out Warren for being a millionaire herself.

It should come as no surprise that these two candidates were fighting. They are near the top of the polls. But the person who took greatest advantage was Amy Klobuchar.

After several back and forths, she jumped in and spoke for all of us: "I did not come here to listen to this argument." And then she went on to talk about campaign finance reform. That was a good moment for her and may help her build on her momentum in Iowa.

Jen Psaki, a CNN political commentator and spring fellow at the Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration.

S.E. Cupp: Biden and Buttigieg's bad bet, and redemption

Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, both said many Americans are not happy with the economy. "Well I don't think they (the American people) really do like the economy," Biden said. "This economy isn't working for most of us," Buttigieg followed.

Both candidates are dangerously gambling that running against a president with a good economy is as simple as telling people they are wrong about how they feel. Polling shows that many Americans -- over 50 percent -- feel as though the economy is strong. Telling them they shouldn't feel good, when they do, is a really bad idea. Elizabeth Warren similarly made an argument in an earlier debate that she hasn't met anyone who liked their insurance company, when plenty of people clearly do.

These sort of arguments aren't only condescending -- never a good strategy -- but they're also unnecessary. Democrats can and should talk about where the economy isn't working and where it could be working even better, but without essentially calling voters either liars or too dumb to know they aren't really as happy as they feel. That's in part how Trump won the first time.

The cousin of condescending is pandering. And later in the debate, Biden improved. When I heard Barack Obama say that women were "indisputably" better at leading than men, I groaned. And I groaned yet again when it came up tonight.

That women are better than men at, well, everything, is a cringeworthy trope. For one, it's just lazy. It's impossible to prove that women are better at amorphous and nebulous things like "leading" or anything else. But for another, it's just transparent and obvious pandering. I think it was brave and -- at least for me -- much appreciated that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, the oldest men on the stage, refused to do the easy thing and say they agree.

S.E. Cupp is a CNN political commentator and the host of "SE Cupp Unfiltered."

Raul Reyes: Yang's great diversity answer

Andrew Yang has not had the easiest run at the Democratic presidential nomination. It is to his credit that he made Thursday's debate stage at all, as the mainstream media has often treated his candidacy as a gimmick or as the quirky project of a successful entrepreneur. In the previous debate on MSNBC, he received the lowest amount of speaking time, and tonight even PBS moderator Judy Woodruff mistakenly addressed a question ostensibly for him to Tom Steyer.

But Yang rose to the occasion in Los Angeles, when he was asked about the lack of diversity on stage (candidates like Cory Booker and Julian Castro did not meet the DNC requirements to participate in the event). "It's both an honor and a disappointment to be the lone candidate of color on the stage tonight," he said, adding that he had "many racial epithets" used against him when he was a kid.

Yang went on to point out that the numbers are stacked against Black and Latinos, who have a significantly lower median net worth per household than white people do. This was an important reminder to a national audience that systemic racism has an economic component -- with political consequences. It also tied into the broader concerns of all the Democratic candidates about income inequality.

Yang then tied this economic point into one about disenfranchisement from the political process. "Fewer than five percent of Americans donate to political campaigns," Yang asserted. "You know what you need to donate political campaigns? Disposable income." Although he may have been off by a few percentage points on the figure regarding donations -- one analysis in July put the number at 8 percent in this election cycle -- it was a valid, relevant point.

Finally, Yang smartly segued this into his signature policy of a "Freedom Dividend." If all Americans had a guaranteed minimum income, he declared, "I would not be the only candidate of color on this stage tonight."

Yang's answer to a potentially perilous question was thoughtful as well as strategic -- and shows that he deserves to be taken seriously.

Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors.

Errol Louis: There's much more to be said about China's human rights violations

In a rare and welcome break from the usual flow of debate questions, the candidates were asked what they would do about human rights abuses in China. The spray of answers highlighted the difficulty of applying moral pressure to a country that is deeply linked to the American economy.

The candidates gave lip service to the horrific plight of China's Uyghur Muslims, an estimated 1 million of whom are in concentration camps. But they mostly ducked the specific question of whether they would pull America out of the 2022 Beijing Olympics to protest human rights abuses in China. (China has denied the accusations of mass imprisonment and called them "completely untrue.")

Pete Buttigieg decried the Chinese leadership's "use of technology for the perfection of dictatorship" and vowed that if a repeat of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre should take place, the Chinese leaders "will be isolated from the free world, and we will lead that isolation diplomatically and economically."

Former Vice President Joe Biden suggested a broad policy of confrontation. "We should be moving 60% of our seapower to that area of the world," he said. "We're not looking for a war, but we've got to make clear, we are a Pacific power, and we are not going to back away."

Billionaire businessman Tom Steyer sounded a note of realism: "We actually can't isolate ourselves from China. In fact, we have to work with them as a frenemy" -- especially on issues like climate change, he said.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar slammed President Trump for remaining silent on China's human rights violations. "He has stood with tyrants over free leaders," said Klobuchar. "He does it all the time."

Andrew Yang pointed to the technology race between the US and China, noting that "they're in the process of leapfrogging us in AI (artificial intelligence)." Yang called for the creation of an international coalition to set technology standards. "This is where we need to out-compete them and win," he said.

But much more needed to be said about the breadth and depth of Chinese human rights violations. It should never be forgotten, for example, that Liu Xiaobo, the only Chinese citizen awarded a Nobel Peace Prize while still residing in China, died in 2017 while serving a 11-year prison sentence for "inciting subversion of state power."

At the time of Xiaobo's death, an estimated 100 Chinese journalists were behind bars, and the Chinese government continues to maintain harsh restrictions over news organizations.

Hopefully a future debate will allow more time for a fuller discussion about human rights in China and elsewhere -- a matter that demands urgent action by the next president.

Errol Louis is the host of "Inside City Hall," a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel.

Paul Begala: Biden's Best Debate

This was Joe Biden's best debate. The former Vice President, who has stumbled in prior debates, was strong, focused, and crisp. In the final 30 minutes, he was even fiery.

Biden's best moment was when he pointedly refused to give up on his decades-long commitment to reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans. If anyone has the right to hate Republicans, Biden noted, it is him, give the vicious attacks Donald Trump and his allies have launched on his family. Then -- and this was brilliant -- he noted, if Republicans won't work with us, we have to beat them at the polls. In one answer he spoke to women in the suburbs who want healing after Trump's hate and the young activists who simply want to crush the GOP electorally.

Elizabeth Warren, as she usually does, gave the sharpest critique of the economic status quo, batting away the presumption that the economy is strong with her trademark line that "the economy is great for the wealthy and the well-connected." She certainly didn't look like a candidate who thinks she's fading in the polls. She was confident and commanding.

Then came the fireworks. In the second hour of the debate she lacerated South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg for attending a high-dollar fundraiser in a wine cave. She was in high dudgeon, but Mayor Pete was ready. He accused her of risking the opportunity to defeat Trump by imposing a purity test that she herself, as a millionaire, cannot meet. He noted that Sen. Warren raised big bucks from big donors as a senator, as did President Obama and others. It did not corrupt them, he said, and he was unwilling to relinquish any weapon in the war against Trumpism.

This is the fundamental debate facing the Democrats: pragmatism versus purity. Sen. Warren seemed almost astonished that Buttigieg had the temerity to hit back.

Amy Klobuchar, who I think is poised to surge in Iowa, was folksy and warm. She stressed her midwestern roots, her father the newspaperman, and her electability with folks in Trump territory. She veered into attacks on Pete Buttigieg toward the end, but she attacked him on experience, and sounded too much like a Beltway insider. Swing and a miss.

Businessman Tom Steyer came to life in the final half-hour, blistering Donald Trump on immigration in stark terms: "Donald Trump is not against immigration from white people. He is against immigrations from non-white people. ... That's a racial argument from a racist president and it has led him to break the laws of humanity."

But when the dust had cleared, there stood Joe Biden, strong as ever.

Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator, was a political consultant for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 and served as a counselor to Clinton in the White House.

Julian Zelizer: Democrats should look to Bernie if they want to beat Trump

What is clear from tonight's debate is that Sen. Bernie Sanders brings something to the table that the other candidates struggle to convey: moral conviction. Sanders has a point of view, whether it's how to help the middle and working class, or the government's grave mistakes on foreign policy. That point of view has helped him build a grassroots movement.

While many Democrats might argue over the specifics of his agenda, question how realistic his policies may be, or criticize his demeanor, there is something about Bernie that all his fellow Democratic candidates should pay close attention to.

Sanders sees politics as a life-and-death struggle, where democracy feeds on candidates who will champion a bold vision, not simply a well-oiled political strategy. What he lacks in specificity he offers in vision, clarity, and consistency. This is the heart of his appeal and the reason he remains a frontrunner.

Even if Sanders does not end up as the eventual nominee, the Democrat who takes on President Trump in 2020 will need some of his essential political energy if he or she is going to withstand and defeat the vicious Republican campaign that will inevitably come. Democrats will need to build a vibrant coalition that can match the zealous base that the president will count on to turn out the vote in swing states.

Julian Zelizer, a CNN political analyst, is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and author of the forthcoming book, "Burning Down the House: Newt Gingrich, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party." Follow him on Twitter: @julianzelizer.

Let's block ads! (Why?)