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.