FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

News

How the Democratic Candidates Handled the Paris Attacks at Saturday's Debate

The shocking act of terrorism on Friday pushed national security and foreign policy to the forefront of the people's minds, and as usual, Hillary Clinton was at the center of the conversation.

Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley at Saturday's Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa. AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

In September 2008, less than two months from election day, the real world suddenly intruded on the hyperreality of an American presidential campaign, when the financial crisis metastasized into something that seemed to threaten the entire world's economy. The Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, temporarily suspended his campaign to return to DC, where Congress was holding emergency bailout talks; Barack Obama followed his lead. If the crisis made the day-to-day point-scoring business of campaigning seem unimportant, it also emphasized what was at stake: If the world was on the verge of crumbling, who would you want to see in charge?

Advertisement

We're a lot further away from election day now than we were back then, but once again a disaster has pushed the spotlight away from a presidential campaign while reminding the public of the seriousness of a president's duties. The attack in Paris, coming on the heels of a deadly bombing in Beirut (the Islamic State has claimed responsibility for both incidents), have pushed worldwide terror, what Pope Francis has called the "piecemeal third world war," to the forefront of people's mind.

On VICE News: 'I Knew to Get Up and Run': The Haunting Remnants of the Attacks in Paris

CBS, which broadcast Saturday night's Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa, responded by announcing that the questions would focus more on national security and foreign policy. Thanks to the rise of left-wing Senator Bernie Sanders, the Democratic campaign so far has focused on economic issues, but last night there was a slight shift in the conversation: The question was not just what America should be able to provide for its citizens, but what role it should play on the world stage.

Here's how each of the candidates dealt with that.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has always been the obvious frontrunner, and even more so than the first debate, last night was all about her. The questions were basically posed to her rivals in a "What would you do differently than Hillary?" format, giving them ample room to criticize her. And, of course, given how these things work, they took the bait—especially on foreign policy, where Hillary's long record and generally hawkish worldview makes her theoretically vulnerable.

Both Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley zeroed in on her 2002 Senate vote to invade Iraq, just like Obama had in 2008, showing a second time that it's her Achilles heel within her own party. Sanders, who sounded a bit more grounded in world history this time around, went as far as to make a link between the Iraq War and the rise of the Islamic State, though he held back from holding Clinton personally responsible (which probably makes sense, given that a majority of Senate Democrats voted to authorize the invasion).

Advertisement

The two non-Clinton candidates didn't hold back from criticizing the notion of an interventionist foreign policy in general, either. "Libya is a mess. Syria is a mess. Iraq is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess," O'Malley said, the point being that America's foreign policy, partly guided by Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, had largely been a failure in the Middle East.

Her response to all this, as might be expected, was to flex her experience at knowledge, at one point going into a short history of terrorist attacks against Americans and at another running down a list of threats the country faced that didn't involve the Middle East. She also distinguished herself from the hawks in the GOP by refusing to say that the US was at war with "radical Islam," telling moderator John Dickerson that it was counterproductive to use such rhetoric when America has to rely on Muslim allies, and that the phrase was "painting with too broad a brush."

When the debate shifted to economics and Wall Street, Hillary's shell hardened as Sanders in particular focused on her ties to the finance industry. "Let's not be naïve about it," Sanders, who has built his entire campaign on this point, said. "Why over her political career has Wall Street been the major campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton?"

Her responses to these criticisms—that her plan to regulate Wall Street was better than her opponents', and that she helped bankers rebuild after 9/11—will not satisfy her progressive critics. Neither will her remarks that the Obama administration couldn't have predicted some events in the Middle East. But she has so far had an answer for everything thrown at her (even if plenty of people don't like those answers), and she is still the frontrunner. "You've heard a lot about me in this debate," she told Iowa in her closing statement last night, and we'll be hearing a lot about her for a long time to come.

Advertisement

Bernie Sanders

A few days before debate, it was reported that Sanders's campaign team had stressed to the candidate that he needs to go after Clinton more, even if he didn't want to. And that internal struggle played out on stage. He attacked her on her ties to Wall Street and her Iraq vote, but he also wants to make this a campaign about issues, not the politics of personality. Accusing anyone other than billionaires of wrongdoing is not his forte. He was given a chance to clarify his famous "the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" remark to Hillary, but didn't slam her for excessive secrecy or lack of transparency. He'd rather talk about Glass-Steagall than another candidate's deficiencies, which is one of the reasons his fans love him, even though that quality may hurt him in the end.

It was obvious, though, that he did his homework on foreign policy and gun control—arguably his two weakest suits—between debates, as he sounded more collegiate and astute on both matters. And he got in a good line about how he didn't want to raise taxes on the rich to the point they were at under Republican Dwight Eisenhower. He may be trailing Clinton, but he's not fading away just yet.

"I love him," one of my friends commented as we watched Sanders go one of his many tirades. "But I don't want him to be president. I just hope he sticks around as long as possible."

Martin O'Malley

After two debates, it's still a bit unclear why O'Malley is in the race. He's likable enough, and holds views in alignment with most Democratic voters, but has struggled to define himself the way the experienced Clinton and fiery progressive Sanders have. Early on, in when replying to a question about fighting the Islamic State, Clinton emphasized the need to cooperate with other countries. O'Malley chimed in by saying, "I would disagree with Secretary Clinton respectfully on this score"—then delivered an answer that pretty much echoed her response.

As a former governor, O'Malley doesn't have much foreign policy experience and didn't distinguish himself during the parts of the debate that focused on Paris. The problem is he's not as strong on the economy as Sanders is, leaving him without an issue to call his own. Maybe he'll find one soon; if not, his presence on debate stages is going to look increasingly strange.

Follow John on Twitter.