The Obama campaign just released this memo... 

In last night’s debate in Los Angeles, the clear winner was the Democratic Party. Senators Clinton and Obama engaged in a substantive, civil discussion of the issues that affect the American people in their daily lives. Our debate stood in stark contrast to the Republican debate the night before which was filled with pettiness and juvenile bickering.

The Democratic debate did illuminate some key differences for voters to consider in the Super Tuesday states and beyond.

Health Care

Obama and Clinton both have solid plans to improve our health care system. Their plans are very similar – they both reduce cost and provide universal coverage. The key difference is that Obama believes that the reason people do not have health insurance is because they cannot afford it, not because they do not want it. Clinton supports forcing people to buy health insurance even if they cannot afford it. Presumably under Clinton’s plan those who do not buy health insurance will be penalized in some way like paying a fine or having their wages garnished. After 17 debates, Clinton still has not revealed how she would enforce this mandate in her health care plan.

Yesterday, more than 85 health care experts released a letter debunking Senator Clinton’s critique of Obama’s plan.

Iraq

As many commentators and pundits pointed out, the portion of the debate focusing on Iraq was the most striking and telling about which candidate has shown the best judgment on foreign policy, and which would be a better nominee against John McCain.

While Obama discussed his strong opposition to the War in Iraq from the beginning and his efforts not just to end the war, but to end the mindset in Washington that got us into the war in the first place, Senator Clinton was on the defensive attempting to explain why her vote for a resolution entitled, “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ” was not a vote for war.

At the time, it was clear to the Senators voting and the American people watching that this vote could send America to war in Iraq. Senator Clinton herself defended her vote on the floor of the Senate by saying, “This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” Yet after 17 debates, Senator Clinton has been unable to explain clearly and concisely why she voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and why she opposed the Levin Amendment – which would have mandated diplomacy before war. Nor has she been willing to admit that this vote was mistake, even though the President used that congressional authorization to launch this misguided war in Iraq.

On the question of her preparation for that vote, Senator Clinton said, “I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.” But the fact is, Senator Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which raised doubts about the case for war – so much so, that the majority of Democratic Senators who read the NIE voted against the war. Senator Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, credited the NIE in convincing him to vote against the war, and urged his colleagues to read it.

On the question of the Levin Amendment, Senator Clinton said, “The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council.  I don't think that was a good precedent.  Therefore, I voted against it.” But the Levin Amendment did not give the UN Security Council final say over the use of force – it mandated that the President go back to Congress for authorization,  if the Security Council did not approve the use of force. The final say would have been with the Congress. This would have required precisely the kind of diplomacy and inspections regime that Senator Clinton says she supported.

One of the questions for Democratic voters on Tuesday is who will be the best candidate to take on John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.  The way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like; and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture.

We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and with Barack Obama as the nominee of the Democratic Party, that’s exactly what he will do. Tough talk and years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It’s not enough to say you’ll be ready from Day One – you have to be right from Day One.