I Watch Democratic Debates, So You Don't Have To

Posted by Steve Benen at 5:42 AM on September 27, 2007.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

The conventional wisdom, which in this case isn't entirely wrong, tells us that the Democratic candidates not named Hillary Clinton have to start taking some pointed risks in order to shake up the race. That means, among other things, taking Clinton on directly at debates.

The approach is not without risk. Dem voters frequently sour on candidates who are too aggressive in taking on the frontrunner (see Gephardt, Dick, circa 2003). But doing nothing is nearly as dangerous -- Clinton's winning this race and if her rivals don't try to slow her down, they won't catch her.

What we saw last night was a field of non-Clinton candidates trying to thread the needle. Overall, I think they did a fairly good job at it.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself on the defensive here Wednesday night in a debate in which the Democratic presidential candidates clashed over withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, the financial future of Social Security and Iran's nuclear threat.

The two-hour debate features clear differences but few fireworks. Clinton (N.Y.), the front-runner for the nomination, drew steady criticism, but her seven rivals couched their disagreements with respect rather than scorn or sharp words. [...]

After turning in a series of winning performances in previous debates, Clinton appeared less dominant on Wednesday. Her potential vulnerabilities were highlighted either through questions from moderator Tim Russert of NBC News or from responses from her opponents.

That sounds about right. For example, Clinton was the only person on the stage to support the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran yesterday. In discussing the policy, John Edwards said, "I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war. We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran."

Similarly, on health care, Barack Obama said, "I think Hillary Clinton deserves credit for having worked on health care. I think John deserves credit for his proposal.... The issue is not going to be who has these particular plans. It has to do with who can inspire and mobilize the American people to get it done and open up the process. If it was lonely for Hillary [in 1993], part of the reason it was lonely, Hillary, was because you closed the door to a lot of potential allies in that process. At that time, 80 percent of Americans already wanted universal health care, but they didn't feel like they were let into the process."

Hardly a gloves-come-off brawl, but clear hints that Clinton will have to endure some increasingly-tough barbs as the process moves forward.

Other observations from my notepad:

* Clinton seemed surprisingly hawkish last night. She talked about a military presence in Iraq beyond 2009, and she took a fairly hard line against Iran. It runs the risk of pushing away some Dem activists.

* This was probably Obama's worst debate performance to date; he seemed flat the whole night. Apparently, he was battling a nasty cold/flu that he picked up overnight. That explains the lackluster presence, but I wonder why he didn't mention it during the event? He could have made some expectations-lower joke about feeling ill, but believing in "playing while hurt." He might have even gained some sympathy. Instead, everyone wondered why he seemed largely invisible for two hours.

* Bill Richardson mentioned his support for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, twice. Worse, he emphasize his support for the bizarre policy while saying he could strengthen Social Security with no pain whatsoever, which made no sense. Unimpressive.

* Edwards was very sharp, needling Clinton frequently, without being overly aggressive. I think he probably helped himself the most last night, except he stumbled slightly when Russert reminded him that in 2004 he said the nation couldn't afford universal health care, described it as "not achievable," and "not responsible." Edwards said he's changed, "and so has America." It was a subtle reminder that 2008 Edwards is frequently at odds with 2004 Edwards.

* Russert asked the "legacy" question: "Senator Clinton, if you are the nominee, it will be 28 years, from 1980 to 2008, where there's been a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket. Is it healthy for democracy to have a two-family political dynasty?" Clinton responded, "I thought Bill was a pretty good president." The answer drew cheers and applause, reminding us once again that Clinton is very good at not answering questions.

* More so than at other recent debates, I thought last night's questions were particularly bad. Candidates were quizzed on lowering the national drinking age to 18, a federal ban on public smoking, their favorite Bible verse, and Red Sox vs. Yankees. Meanwhile, there was no mention of Darfur, global warming, S-CHIP, and a variety of other deserving issues.

All in all, no game-changing moments. What'd you think?

Tagged as: richardson, edwards, clinton, obama, election08, democrats

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.