On PBS’ Washington Week in Review Friday night, New York Times’ reporter David Sanger asked Time magazine’s Karen Tumulty what the relative dearth of discussion on Iraq during Thursday’s Democratic Party presidential debate said about the “utility” of raising the issue for the party going forward in the campaign season.
As a public service to my readership, here is the transcript of Ms. Tumulty’s answer, recorded from the podcast, transcribed by me:
Sanger: Karen, two months ago, we would have all said that this debate on Social Security or on the health care plans would get blotted out by Iraq. We heard very little about Iraq last night. What does that tell you about the Party and what they think about the utility of raising the issue?
Tumulty: Well, I think that that in fact was one of the most fascinating things about the evening, and except that they once again had the argument about who was right about Iraq first . . . [stepped on by Sanger]
Sanger: We’ve heard that before
Tumulty: Exactly. I think that if you look out there and you look at the polling I think that there is at least a subtle shift in the political dynamic on Iraq and it may be because people think it’s getting better and it may be because people think that they’re going to give the politicians a little bit of breathing room on it but there was really not a lot of specific discussion as to where you go from here and this was the first debate where that was the case.
When they downplay, intensify. “They” are attempting to omit their defeatism, obstructionism, and non-support. Whoever delayed, obstructed, or sought to prevent victory and profit politically from defeat must now suffer the consequences.