Despite the best efforts of Tim Russert, who asked rinky-dink meta-questions about the past week for most of the first segment, the Democratic debate in Los Vegas was a pause for breath tonight, with Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton all going out of their way to dial back the heat and try to bridge the identity politics chasms that have yawned open of late. As such, with all three candidates on their best behavior and looking to avoid direct confrontations that might get nasty, it was the type of debate that made the party and all three contenders look good, but also probably didn’t change very many votes.
From where I sat — and this will surprise exactly no one — I thought Barack Obama came off the best of the three. He seemed gracious in his call to move past last week’s racial firestorm and deflected the — many — attempts by Russert to re-inject race into the debate. He offered the only funny moments of the evening (Brian Williams thinking he was in LA notwithstanding) and seemed convincing and natural. And, perhaps most importantly, he displayed a command of policy specifics and a capacity for nuance, which once again belies the argument that he’s just a oratorical Hope machine. He seemed, in a word, presidential. (Although I do wish, when asked when he’d first decided to run for president, he’d simply said “kindergarten.”)
John Edwards was as good and on-message as always, but it didn’t seem like he managed to do anything tonight that would be a game-changer. (Then again, in an atmosphere of such explicit convivality as tonight, Edwards’ central message — I will fight for you! — didn’t have much of a chance to gain traction anyway. That being said, he did manage to trump Clinton’s dubious “35 years of experience” claim by announcing that “for 54 years I’ve been fighting with every fiber of my being.” 54 years of fighting? Hey, let’s not forget those nine months in the womb, there.) Edwards also brought up one of the first campaign finance questions we’ve heard in awhile — one in which Obama announced he’d ultimately be for public financing, which made me happy — but due to the moderators not seeming to understand their own rules, it never got around to Senator Clinton, where it was likely — and should have been — directed.
Hillary Clinton came across better tonight than she did in New Hampshire, and, to her credit, she also did her part to uphold the truce (at least in public.) But — again, not a shocker here — I still found her dismayingly evasive on several questions: on Robert Johnson (do you believe his ridiculous clarification or do you think his comments were “out of bounds”?), on whether her opponents were qualified (she couldn’t just say yes?), on the bankruptcy bill (you voted for it in 2001 but was glad it didn’t pass?), and of course, on the politics of fear question, to take a few examples. But, as always, she had done her homework, she smartly went after Dubya a few times, and she had the talking points ready to attack on the Yucca Mountain question. (Without meaning to dismiss the important issue at hand, it’s safe to say “Yucca” is apparently Nevadan for “ethanol.”)
So, at any rate, I’d say Obama came off the best tonight, but Edwards and Clinton were both solid as well. (And I would presume supporters of the other two candidates would say the same, with perhaps the names rearranged.) More than anything, tonight was a chance for tempers to cool and for the party to show it was ready — despite the best efforts of Mr. Russert — to discuss matters of substance again. Still, with Nevada this Saturday and South Carolina right around the corner, I wouldn’t expect the next debate to be so congenial.
Kevin,
I’ve been surprised by many comments I’ve read from Clinton supporters who believe that Obama is somehow a conservative or a pushover. They appear to be primarily interested in vengence over the Republicans and think only someone as vicious as Clinton can achieve this, even though she will obviously govern as moderately as her husband. They also seem willfully blind to what Obama is attempting to do: creating a majority coalition to support progressive ideas rather than a 50%-plus-one victory followed by stalemate. Clinton supporters want a Democratic George W. Bush; I want a Democratic Ronald Reagan.
I agree with everything that Ted said except perhaps the very end. I don’t remember the Reagan years as being that unifying. Perhaps less poisoned than now, but still bitter.
Ted,
I agree. It’s completely counterintuitive and doesn’t really make any sense. A lot of pro-Clinton posts out there seem to suggest that it’s a bad thing that Obama draws independent and disgruntled GOP voters, and that all true-blue Dems should show their merit by voting for Clinton. As if appealing to swing voters and people outside the party is somehow a liability in a general election.
Plus, as you say, Obama’s record is considered by almost all observers — including the Clinton campaign, when they’re attacking that way that day — as to the left of Clinton’s. So we have a choice between a moderate candidate which half the country (and growing) can’t stand, or a moderate-left candidate which people on both sides of the aisle seem to like. It would seem a no-brainer.
So why does Clinton lead among Dems right now? I think some of it has to do with [a] name recognition and a general unfamiliarity with Obama, which is still a big factor in the national polls especially, and [b] a knee-jerk response among many Dems, formed over almost two decades with the Clintons, that people who oppose them (even in a Democratic primary campaign) do so for right-wing, nefarious reasons. The vast right-wing conspiracy, the vast media conspiracy, the vast Obama conspiracy…The Clintons have taken a lot of unfair and unnecessary flak over the years, sure. I spent several years of my life cataloguing it. But they’ve also made a political career out of acting the unfairly aggrieved party, and thus convincing a lot of Dems to back their play. That’s clearly what they’ve been doing since NH. When their backs were to the wall, they went back to the well.
I think your Bush-Reagan analogy is exactly right. It seems many Clinton-backing Democrats — the angry, posting ones, at least — are still fighting the last war. They’re still (rightfully) angry about impeachment, the 2000 election, the past seven years of Bush, and so they push Clinton forth as the left’s answer to Dubya — a Democratic candidate who’s not above using the same Rovian tactics (smears, wedge cards, obfuscation, lying) as the right when the opportunity arises. That’ll show those Repugnicans!
But, when a possibly paradigm-changing candidate emerges on the left — one with a strong progressive record and the charisma and political skills to forge a broader progressive coalition out of Democrats, independents, disgruntled Republicans, and people previously disgusted with the process — they blanch, and turn on him like he’s the second coming of Ken Starr, some right-wing, Trojan horse pretender to the Clinton throne. It’s like all too many Dems have PTSD or something.
Still, we have a ways to go yet. Obama’s been doing a very good job thus far of sidestepping the Clintons’ attempts to turn him into the New Enemy. And the Clintons risk a full-fledged return to “Clinton fatigue” in the electorate when they keep pushing so hard (and unfairly) at Obama. A new national poll has the two in a virtual tie. So let’s keep it moving, step by step. Next stop, Nevada…
Ted,
Are you working for the Obama campaign? 🙂
I think what Senator Obama says here is right on target. But I fear the subtlety of his argument is about to get butchered into a Bill Clinton talking point.
Well, it looks like those working in the Obama campaign are definitely thinking in similar ways as we are. I thought it was especially funny when the Clintonites were pointing to the list of racially suspect quotes from Clinton supporters compiled by the Obama press officer in South Carolina as proof that his campaign was unfairly attacking Clinton, when we had already been compiling the same list independently. (By the way, the cocaine/MLK/shuck-and-jive stuff doesn’t offend me nearly as much as the unforgivably Cheney-esque elect-Obama-and-the-terrorists-will-attack statement she made. She lost my vote with that one.)
Or…a John Edwards talking point.
Took awhile, but the Clinton camp’s going for it now, via Barney Frank.
And now so is Hillary. Obama’s campaign responds here.
Looks like I’ll never run for office. Obama tries to be thoughtful and reflective and gets hammered for it by hacks like Hillary W. Clinton.
It’s probably not worth noting, but one poster at TPM discovered that Hillary has previously listed Reagan as one of her favorite presidents.