Earnestness, Innocence and Hardball: Last Night's Rumble in S.C.

Now that was a debate.

At least the first, brawling Q&A hour was; while the second, more freewheeling sit-down session, in which one would expect even more fireworks, calmed into tea-party politeness. But damn. That first part was riveting, and poor Wolf was right on the verge of calling, "Medic!"

For bloody it got, and with just about the right mixture of personality and substantive policy clashes, although inevitably the former tends to overwhelm the latter.

Edwards passionately struggled to remind voters this is a three-way race of real consequences; Obama -- displaying his rookie status -- allowed himself to be cornered into such things as explaining the byzantine workings of the Illinois state legislature; and Clinton, having reread the playbook, went for the soft underbelly. Earnestness, innocence and hardball on display.

There is so little ideological difference among the three that personality was bound to take center stage. On the one item of real substantive distinctions -- national healthcare and how to achieve it -- that did arise, however, Clinton and Edwards, I think, got the better of Obama. The social appeal of universality was reframed by Clinton, especially, as a political necessity as well. The next president shouldn't start the Congressional process of gutting a national healthcare plan without first demanding the gold-star model, because whittle it they will.

Obama's defensive fallback was, as he insisted, "reasonable," but that's less of a clean soundbite. And I imagine if Obama had the policymaking to do over, he'd opt for the cleaner version of universality from the get-go. As Karl Rove demonstrated more than once, "Explaining is losing."

Based on last night's debate alone, and representing its one sharp downside, one would have been hard pressed to recall that we happen to have a couple wars in progress. Furthermore, one would have been stumped as to who voted to get us into the bloodier and utterly needless one.

Which made one of Clinton's two more searing accusations of the evening (transcript) all that more laughable: "You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern."

At this, the crowd understandably booed, and it was refreshing to hear that they did indeed recall -- you know, the war-vote thing that she's been running from ever since that "splendid little war" went sour. Her charge reflected less the Rovian style than that of Rush Limbaugh: locate your greatest weakness, then turn the tables and attack.

And, of course, there was the inevitable "Reagan" issue, a gross mischaracterization that the stuff of tawdry politics thrives on. I'll give Edwards credit for not repeating it this time around, but Clinton knows a good distortion when she formulates one and she sticks with it, even going so far as to add her own adjectives to Obama's words. What progressive wouldn't join in Clinton's condemnation if Obama had said what he didn't?

Nevertheless his actual words were immeasurably impolitic, but only in the sense that the sewer of political campaigning is no place to teach logic to voters. His words did, however, raise an interesting question that rarely, if ever, seems to be raised. To wit ...

While Obama was merely being historically and objectively analytical, his temperate comments were also designed to reach out to the broad center -- principally moderate independents, but disaffected Republicans as well. That was the subtle message -- too subtle -- that brought the wrath of ideological purists down on his head. It's their sandbox now, and no one but card-carrying liberal Democrats should be permitted to play in it. Screw outsiders, which is a rather bizarre coalition-building strategy of one.

Yet it is John Edwards who has consistently, openly and emphatically maintained that he's the only Democratic candidate who can appeal to red-state America. That would be the states vastly populated by -- yep -- independents and Republicans, precisely the same voters to whom Obama's clumsy appeal was made. The unfair logical extension, of course -- that is, the one applied to Obama -- is that red-states would fall into Edwards' column only because Edwards is campaigning through some sort of red-state ideological coloration.

Or at least that's the charge made against Obama. It has smacked him upside the head -- again, unfairly -- but it's never even hurled at Edwards.

Maybe Edwards should hold a press conference and make the charge against himself. He can then put on his own defense, which would but mirror Obama's. At least it would ensure him more media attention.

Comments

[beamer]

Edwards will get no added media attention until he leaves the race or get's caught with his pants down...nice of you to mention him tho.

[AnaHadWolves]

Barack Obama seems to retreat into petulance when his votes, positions, changes of positions, et al, are being challenged vigorously by either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Thats tough, Barack; welcome to the real-world of political give-and-take.

Finally, when Obama is held accountable for his past political activities, retreating into the "you're-only-doing-this-because-I'm-black" mantra has now worn very thin.

I have been a strong supporter of a Clinton/Obama ticket for 2008 and 2012 and an Obama ticket, with him at the top, in 2016 and 2020. Now, though, I'm wondering is Obama is mature enough. To me he's neither too black or too white...he's too green.

[PA Obama Guy]

Excuse me AnaHadWolves,
"you're only doing this because I'm black" ? I never heard anything like this from the Obama camp. Typical Clinton style though, mis-characterize your opponents comments, amp up the faux indignation and then criticize the opponent for defending themselves. This is what the meat heads on the right have been doing on talk radio and Fox news for over a decade. It's not pretty or effective for a Democrat. I would also add for the Clintons- people who live in glass houses.......

[Anok]

I think this is a good wrap up of the debate. Caught you over at buzzflash, good go!

Anok

[Felicia]

I have to agree with PA Obama Guy. With the Clintons swiftboating him, Obama had to come out on the defensive. PM Carpenter says explaining is losing. John Kerry tried ignoring the smears from the Swiftboat Veterens for Truth, and he lost the '04 election. Obama did a good job of explaining himself and calling Hillary Clinton on her mischaracterizations of him. If you look at her body language standing at (or rather leaning on the podium), she's pissed because she doesn't have the protection of the stump speech or her husband. It's harder to lie about somebody in front of them. Obama getting angry shows he's grown as a debater and can take on the Republican machine in November.

[milton wiltmellow]

Did no one notice the subtext that permeates all political discussion these days?

All three candidates expressed it explicitly and passionately.

Who is best prepared to undo the damage done the country by Bush?

I watched the CNN post-debate coverage. None of their clips captured any of the three Dem candidates explicitly slamming Bush for the problems our country faces.

I'll vote for whomever promises criminal investigation/prosecution.

No pardons!

[Bill McWilliams]

I disagree with Carpenter's notion that all three candidates share virtually the same viewpoint on substantive issues.

That notion serves the interest of the two corporate candidates and disserves the interest of those who aren't wealthy or even highly paid professionals (such as professors).

John Edwards is the only major NON-corporate candidate and I'm surprised that Mr. Carpenter seems unaware of that.

[Karen]

PA Obama guy, I am really tired of people claiming that Obama has not misrepresented anything anyone has said when he does it regularly.
And we all know why he stuck Reagan in there because he is going for independent votes, period, end of story.
I am waiting for him to come out explicitely with what he disagreed with Reagan on, just to see how it flies with the GOPer and moderate votes he is going after.
It won't cut it with anyone who has a brain or was old enough to remember, to say, "I didn't agree with him on everything, but boy what a guy for change." Every damn change was negative.
To get my vote Obama needs to say how he disagreed with Reagan, but he will say or do anything for a vote.
He voted "present" on women's issues for political reasons in Illinois and last September he voted "present" on free speech for Moveon.org. We all know it was a political call or we hope he isn't for limiting free speech or calling anyone or group who comes out vocally against the war, unpatriotic. I hope he isn't agreeing with the GOP on that, but it is hard to tell.

Someone ask Obama why he didn't vote "no" on censuring Moveon.org. Go ahead ask him and he will probably claim he was in the toilet or something.

[zeldon]

to rephrase Bill C.: people are voting for Hillary or Barack for
the wrong reasons.
Their politics are indistinguishable from Bush the First.

[Will]

It's becoming clear that a second Presidential Restoration will be a disaster. For all the good that Bill Clinton did, his presidency and Hillary’s ineptitude with her health care initiative helped coalesce the Republican wing-nuts and persuade the electorate to put them in power after 40 years in the wilderness. Then Bush 43 - the First Restoration. After twelve years of this divisive ascendancy, we now face four more years of national unravelling if Hill/Bill becomes our nominee. Barak does well to keep his cool in response to Hill/Bill’s blood politic. He responds as one of us would; not sullied by political character assassination. So keep it up Barak. I keep reading about independents and Republicans who are also disaffected and considering to vote for a Democrat, especially for Barak. We will certainly loose those critical votes if Hillary is our nominee in 2008. Borrowing moves from Rove's play book shows Hill/Bill's hand and their truth, and disgusts me. If McCann gets the nod on the "dark side”, and Hillary on ours, I'll actually consider voting for him over Hill/Bill. While lacking the right policies he shows more character and "better the enemy I know than the friend that's really my enemy". Hard for me to believe, but there it is.

[Keith Blevins]

Obama's explanation of his relationship to Rezko was laughable. Rezko was his primary fundraising mentor for 17 years. And yet Obama claims their working relationship only involved 4 hours of legal work he did for a church group. Give me a break Mr. Obama. You WILL need to answer to this before all is over, why feed us an obvious line of crap?

He's done. When the details of this story get wide circulation Obama's aspirations for higher office will evaporate. Not necessarily because of his involvement with Rezko, but because of his attempt to characterize a 17 year relationship as consisting of 4 hours of work.

I guess he decided he WILL tell us his worst flaw is helping little old ladies cross the street. His Rezko explanation is just as big a whopper.

[MYKIEL]

This the the first time that Obama has actually had to campaign for an elected office. In Chicago when he ran for state senate he challenged every single name on all the petitions of all the other democratic candidates and whittled them all down to the point that NONE of them had enough signatures. The other candidates used one list to verify the signatures they got on their petitions and then just prior to the cut off date a new list came out and Obama took the new list to challange all the signatures resulting in the loss of a lot of names and it was then too late for the other candidates to make up the difference. So he ended up running unopposed.
Then, of course we all remember how he became senator...it was revealed at the 11th hour that his rather popular republican opponent did weird kinky sex stuff with his ex wife (co-star with James Woods on the show "Shark") so he dropped out of the race. A desperate state republican party threw Alan Keyes in there.
Now he has a 26 year old boy wonder head speech writer who puts all those inspiring words in his mouth making him sound oh so young and idealistic. But is it really him or is it the wonder boy?
When he doesnt have a prepared speech he isnt nearly as inspiring. And when he gets +attacked+ he does a Mitt Romney and gets all indignant that anyone DARE not be nicey nice to him.
If he is coming all unravelled over this trivial little stuff, what the hell is he going to do when the right wing attack machine goes at em. We already know Hillary can deal with them...we dont need someone whos going to stamp their feet and whine *HES PICKING ON ME*.
Welcome to politics Barack....this time its not going to be handed to you on a silver platter. Your actually going to have to work for it. And incidently didnt Obama support Sleazerman when he ran as an independant and not the Democratic candidate?

[knixphan]

"Ask Hillary about her longtime pal Norman Hsu-
or the name of the commodities broker who turned her $1000 into $100,000.

Better yet, lets see the still sealed archives of her tenure in the White House. And while we’re at it, maybe we can get a list of the “donors” for the construction of the Presidential library."

[Thomas Chacko]

I agree with Keith Blevins and AnaHadWolves. And I am also tired of hearing the stale, shallow, Nader-like rants, such as "Clinton and Obama are indistinguishable from Bush the First", "Typical Clinton style ...", "Another Restoration", "McCain has more character than Hillary (!)" and "Edwards is the only non-corporate candidate"!

As decent as he is, if Edwards became the Democratic nominee, the Grand Old Putas would pick apart every detail of his law career and play their usual game of lies and distortion. First we have to see whether he can even win primaries in the South! Being a distant third ain't cuttin' it!

The Clinton "style" is to fight for what you believe in -- long-term policies that benefit your country. And to perservere in the face of daily pounding from the mainstream media, talk-radio sewage, and even the naysayers in your own party who talk of "betrayal" of progressive principles. Hillary has the requisite toughness for the fall campaign and the presidency.

Obama is not yet used to the idea of being challenged. For the first time, he is in a real fight, and playing the martyr whenever the Clintons disagree with him will not serve him well in the long run. In a fall campaign, the GOP hatchet men won't care about hurt feelings or accusations of prejudice.

Politics, Barack, is a tough game, and the Clintons did not make it that way. They did not ask for all the abuse they took through Bill's term, but they had to deal with it.