EMAIL
PRINT
18 COMMENTS
This post, written by Steve Benen, originaly appeared on The Carpetbagger Report
Not since the first debate for the Democratic presidential candidates, way back in April, has there actually been some anticipation about what might happen. Last night, in Philadelphia, it was obvious that Hillary Clinton's rivals would be more aggressive towards the front-runner, but how much? Who'd benefit? Would it make a difference?
We gained some insights into the questions last night. One of the things I thought was interesting was that Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards all went after Clinton, to one degree or another, but they all went about it in very different ways.
Obama characterized Clinton as inconsistent, and therefore, unreliable: "Clinton in her campaign, I think, has been for NAFTA previously, now she's against it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago and then most recently has taken a different position. She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later said this was a war for diplomacy. Now, that may be politically savvy, but I don't think that it offers the clear contrast that we need."
Edwards characterized Clinton as dishonest, and therefore, lacking integrity: "She says she'll stand up to George Bush on Iran. She just said it again. And in fact, she voted to give George Bush the first step in moving militarily on Iran, and he's taken it.... I was surprised by Senator Clinton's vote, I'll be honest about that, and then I saw an explanation of it in The New York Times for her vote, which basically said she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I think that our responsibility as presidential candidates is to be in tell-the-truth mode all the time."
Dodd characterized Clinton as unelectable, and therefore, not worth voting for: "Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from -- from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her. I'm not saying that people don't know already. I don't necessarily like it, but those are the facts."
In previous debates, Clinton would just laugh off any criticism directed at her, or deflect it with a joke. Last night, that wasn't an option -- the questions dominated the event. Obama emphasized Clinton's secrecy on presidential papers from the '90s; Edwards emphasized Clinton's fundraising; everyone emphasized Clinton's vote on Kyl-Lieberman.
But in a real change of pace, Clinton actually slipped a little, and actually made a mistake.
Towards the end of the debate, Russert noted New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) plan to provide driver's licenses to immigrants who enter the country illegally. Clinton had told a New Hampshire paper that the plan "makes a lot of sense." Clinton hedged, and explained why Spitzer is pursuing the policy, in an apparent defense.
Dodd questioned the policy, saying a driver's license should be a privilege. Clinton tried to backpedal: "I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."
Oops. She said the plan makes a lot of sense, and defended Spitzer's efforts, but then isn't sure if the idea is any good? Clinton supports the policy, but won't endorse the policy?
Her rivals pounced. Edwards said, "Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago, and I think this is a real issue for the country." Obama added, "I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it, and I do think that is important. You know, one of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face. Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular, or trying to gauge popular sentiment."
Part of the problem is that Clinton is generally such a mistake-free campaigner, an error like this becomes all the more glaring. All of a sudden, a harmless waffle over an obscure state policy becomes an issue.
Other observations from my notes:
* Joe Biden spoke the least, but delivered some of the night's most memorable lines: "Rudy Giuliani, probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency, is here talking about any of the people here. Rudy Giuliani. I mean, think about it. Rudy Giuliani. There's -- there's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11. I mean, there's nothing else. There's nothing else. And I mean it sincerely. He is genuinely not qualified to be president."
* Obama threw quite a few rhetorical punches, but he continues to be reasonable and polite about it. Nothing he said came across as an "attack." If you're skeptical about Obama, you interpret this as lacking a killer instinct. If you're a fan of Obama, you interpret this as presidential stature.
* Bill Richardson just isn't good at debating. He doesn't even seem to try to distinguish himself. His most memorable lines last night came in defense of Hillary Clinton -- he encouraged Obama and Edwards not to pick on her -- which will probably only reinforce suspicions that he wants to be VP.
* Mike Gravel wasn't invited, and I didn't miss him.
* Dodd had a good night, but continues to get less airtime than he deserves.
* Edwards was far more effective in forcefully challenging Clinton than Obama, without taking cheap shots. It made me wonder if Obama is counting on Edwards to bring Clinton down a peg (or two), while he stays more or less above the fray.
* Kucinich is a disciplined candidate -- he has a message, and he says the exact same thing in every debate, no matter what. His soundbites sound familiar, because we've heard them -- word for word -- before. Regrettably, his claim about having seen a UFO became a major topic of discussion.
* And Clinton, while sharp as always, seemed to be a little rattled by all the criticism last night. She glared at Edwards in a way I hadn't seen before.
So, what'd you think?
Tagged as: defense budget, election08, democrats, edwards, biden, kucinich, dodd, obama, hillary clinton
Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.
No comments:
Post a Comment