In the days leading up to the last debate for the Democratic presidential candidates, there was an ugly race-based dispute between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, leading many to wonder whether the debate would take a vicious turn. Just the opposite happened — Clinton and Obama backed away from the cliff, made nice, and produced a decidedly genteel affair.
Fast forward a week. Once again, the pre-debate animosity had grown intense. Would the debate, held on the national Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, offer the candidates an opportunity to turn down the temperature? Well, the opportunity was there, but the top two candidates declined.
Last night was easily the most heated, argumentative debate of the campaign thus far. No other confrontation even comes close. Depending on one’s appetite for such things, it was either a riveting slug fest or an uncomfortable fracas, but for what it’s worth, I tend to lean towards the latter. Here was the most contentious exchange:
I suspect people responded differently to the fiery remarks based largely on their political sympathies, but I noticed two distinct angles. First, if there were concerns that Obama was “too nice” to mix it up, he probably put those concerns to rest last night; he gave as good as he got.
Second, this probably isn’t the direction that actually benefits Obama. Clinton doesn’t mind getting into a good ol’ fashioned brawl; she’s quick, smart, and quite adept in these scuffles. Just as importantly, she’s not afraid to throw dirt — Clinton said last night of Obama, “The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years.” That’s patently false, but it didn’t seem to matter.
The problem for Obama is getting dragged into the mud when he wants to aim higher.
Indeed, the moment the campaign gets ugly, he’s at a decided disadvantage — if he returns fire, it’s politics as usual, with politicians bickering and getting personal. If he doesn’t return fire, and aims for a “new kind of politics,” the attacks from Clinton start to stick, and questions about general election “toughness” emerge.
It’s not that Obama couldn’t compete in a street fight — he seemed pretty good at it — it’s that he was fighting on Clinton’s terms.
Oddly enough, given the bitterness of the first half of the debate, the second half — in which the candidates went from standing behind podiums, to sitting in chairs — was far more relaxed. There were far fewer attacks, and far lighter moments. Of course, which do you suppose will get all the media attention today — the candidates on the attack, or the candidates getting along? I have a hunch it won’t be the latter.
I’ve neglected to mention John Edwards, who was not only in the debate, but was actually pretty good. It seemed, for a while, that Edwards was going to try to be the above-the-fray candidate — talking substance while the other two squabbled — but that’s not quite right, either. He mixed it up with Obama over “present” votes (which is a pretty weak attack for those who’ve looked at the details), and with Clinton over her willingness to hire corporate lobbyists. In this respect, it was more or less a three-way fight, with Edwards just getting less airtime.
As soon as the debate was over, the NYT’s Katherine Seelye noted:
With all this broken china on the floor, it’s hard to know where to start picking up the pieces. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama showed themselves pretty adept at hurling plates, then reaching into the cabinet and pulling out cups and saucers too.
The audience looked none too happy, and it’s not clear what effect this debate will have on Saturday’s primary here in South Carolina.
In all likelihood, not much.
I may have another debate-related post or two this morning, but looking at the big picture, what’d you think?