The Democratic presidential primaries have, in recent weeks, taken an ugly, often acrimonious, turn. There have been some unusually bitter disputes about race, gender, unions, history, abortion, and the media, and one couldn’t help but wonder if perhaps the campaign would get too nasty for the candidates’ own good.
With that in mind, I imagine a fair amount of the audience for last night’s debate in Las Vegas tuned in, if for no other reason, to see if the three leading candidates (a state court allowed MSNBC to bar Kucinich yesterday afternoon) brought brass-knuckles and baseball bats to the event.
They didn’t. Indeed, it was largely the opposite. I don’t always agree with Kit Seelye’s debate coverage, but I think she got this point quite right.
The only thing you really need to know about this debate is that the truce kept, the cease-fire held. To the point of joviality.
It followed almost a week of increasingly ugly racial recriminations between the Clinton and Obama camps. They finally snapped out of it last night and declared a “truce.” The fear, obviously, was that they were leaving each other as road kill for the Republicans.
Somewhere out of the muck they rose up tonight and decided that neither wanted to be blamed for a Democratic defeat in November.
You could see it in the one question that Mrs. Clinton got to ask of Mr. Obama tonight — whether he would join her in trying to “rein in” President Bush from making commitments in Iraq that would be undone by the next (Democratic) president. This was unity personified, unity walking down the aisle.
At one point, early on, Hillary said, “We’re all family in the Democratic Party.” It set the tone for the rest of the night — I think there was probably more laughter and light-hearted moments than in most of the other debates combined.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the candidates’ pollsters noticed that rank-and-file Dems didn’t care at all for the spiteful turn in the campaign of late, and wanted to see Clinton, Edwards, and Obama drop the nonsense, and get back to their messages.
Last night, that’s exactly what they did.
I don’t know if it’s possible to have a great debate with abysmal questions, but if it is, I thought the event in Las Vegas came pretty close. I thought all three of the candidates sounded very good — I have no idea who, if anyone, “won” — and put their best feet forward. Indeed, from my vantage point, I’d say each of them appeared as good as the other two.
This is not to say, however, that the debate was boring. On the contrary, I thought the event, once we got past the 40 full minutes of horserace and process questions, actually highlighted some interesting areas.
Observations from my notes:
* Clinton got a little tripped up on the Robert Johnson flap. On the one hand, she said we should take Johnson at his word. On the other, she said Johnson’s comments were “out of bounds.” I’m pretty sure those two positions contradict each other.
* Clinton also refused to respond either way to a question about whether Obama and Edwards are qualified to serve as president. A simple “of course” would have sufficed.
* Edwards, responding to a question about his greatest weakness, noted his emotional responses “to pain that I see around me.” Um, John? I know it’s a stupid question, but “caring too much” isn’t really a weakness.
* There was a fascinating exchange between Obama and Clinton when it came to Obama’s greatest weakness (he was refreshingly candid in his response, talking about his inability to micro-manage a bureucracy). Clinton used this to hint that Obama was like Bush. Obama turned it around: “The point in terms of bringing together a team is that you get the best people, and you’re able to execute and hold them accountable. There’s something, if we’re going to evaluate George Bush and his failures as president, that I think are much more important. He was very efficient. He was on time all the time and, you know, had — (laughter) — you know, I — I’m sure he never lost a paper. I’m sure he knows where it is. (Laughter.) What he could not do is to listen to perspectives that didn’t agree with his ideological predispositions. What he could not do is to bring in different people with different perspectives and get them to work together.”
* When Clinton started talking about “sovereign wealth funds,” it was a reminder that when it comes to policy details, she’s second to no one, in either party’s presidential fields.
* Edwards was confronted with a question about his vote for a 2001 bankruptcy bill, which he now “regrets.” It pointed to a problem that came up a few times last night — Edwards’ Senate career. He voted for the war, for a bad bankruptcy bill, and for Yucca Mountain (twice). It might have led the average viewer to wonder which Edwards is the real one, the moderate senator or the liberal candidate.
* Clinton got a little tripped up on her own vote on the 2001 bankruptcy bill, saying she voted for it, but was “happy that it never became law.” If she didn’t want it become law, why’d she vote for it?
* Obama touted public financing of campaigns, which was good to hear.
* He also took on the ridiculous email smear, and the “likeable enough” flap, both of which he handled very well.
* Edwards’ best answer of the night came in support of benefits for the troops: “They didn’t leave us on our own, we shouldn’t leave them on their own. And we need to narrow this gap between civilian pay and military pay, and help these families with their child care.”
* On the same point, Obama reminded us that his limited Senate career has produced a few substantive victories: “I went to Walter Reed to talk to the wounded warriors who had come back to discover that they were still paying for their meals and their phone calls while in Walter Reed, while rehabbing, which I could not believe. And I was able to gain the cooperation of a Republican- controlled Senate at the time and pass a bill that would eliminate that.”
* None of them want to push gun control, and all of them support allowing military recruiters on college campuses. No big surprises there.
* For all the pleasantries, Obama did criticize Clinton on one thing — politics of fear. Clinton once again suggested that al Qaeda may test the next president, Obama said, “I have to say that when Senator Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack with a new prime minister during a campaign, I think that is part and parcel with what we’ve seen the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points. And I think that’s a mistake.”
Overall, I got the sense that all three believe they’re in pretty good shape, both in Nevada and elsewhere, and knew that getting too aggressive would be a huge risk. Instead, they played it safe and kept it clean.
And once again, I feel compelled to mention something that I always seem to mention after Democratic debates: these three are really, really good candidates. Comparing them to the clowns running for the Republican nomination is breathtaking, given their command of the issues, the seriousness of their agendas, the depth of their visions, and the ability to speak outside of scripted talking points. It’s hard not to watch Obama, Edwards, and Clinton and not be proud of the Democratic Party.
So, what’d you think?