The Democratic presidential candidates met in Iowa for the (mercifully) last debate before Iowans caucus in just three weeks, and like the Republicans’ event the day before, it was a genteel event — everyone was on their very best behavior.
It’s easy to understand why. Just as general-election campaigns go positive in the closing weeks before November, no one wants to go negative shortly before voters start making their choice. As a result, the six-person field — Kucinich and Gravel did not meet organizers’ standards for participation — left their attack dogs at home.
Who won? Well, probably no one in particular, though I thought the top three candidates did exactly what they wanted to do:
Barack Obama delivered his best debate performance this year, appearing relaxed and confident, and articulating his vision for change very effectively. John Edwards, who’s always good at the debates, seamlessly interweaved his populist themes into every answer. Similarly, Hillary Clinton effectively (and constantly) worked her emphasis on experience at every opportunity. The three showed up hoping to hammer their points home, and all three did just that.
Having said that, it looked to me that Obama benefited most. The moment that’s getting all the attention was the clever turnaround on having Clinton advise him once he’s president, but I found a different exchange even more beneficial.
WASHBURN: Senator Biden, you and your campaign have had a number of occasions to correct or clarify things you’ve said relating to race, including your remarks about Senator Obama being, quote, “clean and articulate”; your comment about Indians working at 7-Eleven; and recently to The Washington Post in which you spoke about race while describing disparities between schools in Washington, D.C. and Iowa. Do these gaps or misunderstandings or however would you characterize them indicate you’re uncomfortable talking about race, or are people just being too sensitive?
I thought it was a bit of cheap shot, and Biden did well explaining his life-long commitment to civil rights. But then Obama followed up.
OBAMA: I just wanted to — I just want to make the comment I’ve worked with Joe Biden, I’ve seen his leadership. I have absolutely no doubt about what is in his heart and the commitment that he has made with respect to racial equality in this country. So I will provide some testimony — (laughter) — as they say in church, that — that Joe is on the right side of the issues and is fighting every day for a better America.
Good for him. Obama vouched for a primary rival, and appeared classy, magnanimous, and maybe even presidential. It was, at least to me, the most memorable exchange of the day.
Other observations from my notes:
* Clinton summarized her campaign perfectly in just one sentence: “Some people believe you get [change] by demanding it. Some people believe you get it by hoping for it. I believe you get it by working hard for change.” I don’t know if that’s true exactly, but I know that’s what Clinton needs voters to believe.
* Bill Richardson, once again, insisted he would push for “a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.” Every time he does this, which is often, I get a little more disappointed with his campaign.
* I noticed that Clinton, more so than in other debates, emphasized her husband’s presidency. She made three separate references to the 1990s, and how we should “restore” and “return” to those good times. If Dems are looking back wistfully, this could work. If Dems are anxious to leave the past in the past, it won’t.
* Edwards’ strongest answer came on trade: “[I]f you look at what’s happened with American trade policy — you asked about China a few minutes ago. Look at what America got. Big corporations made a lot of money, are continuing to make a lot of money in China. But what did America get in return? We got millions of dangerous Chinese toys. We lost millions of jobs. Right here in Iowa, the Maytag plant in Newton closed. A guy named Doug Bishop, who I got to know very well, had worked in that plant and his family had worked in that plant literally for generations, and his job is now gone. The same thing, by the way, happened in the plant that my father worked in when I was growing up.” It sounded a little rehearsed, but it was effective anyway.
* Chris Dodd’s strongest answer came on energy policy: “We’re borrowing a billion dollars every single day to buy foreign oil, a billion dollars every day. We’re not going to wish ourselves out of this problem here. I’m the only candidate on this floor here who’s advocated a corporate carbon tax. Now, I’m fully aware of the implications of suggesting a tax, but it’s not enough to state the goals. We’ve got to have the courage to stand up and tell you how you get there. And until you deal with the price differentials here, cheaper fuel is always going to win out unfortunately. So you need to be able to tax this carbon, which is killing us and killing this planet.” It was a passionate answer; it was clear that Dodd takes this seriously.
* I love it when the candidates bring up habeas, and Obama did yesterday: “I think that folks made a terrific point, that we have to stand for human rights and that should be part of the trade equation. It is harder for us to do it when we have situations like Guantanamo, where we’ve suspended habeas corpus. To the extent that we are not being true to our values and our ideals, that sends a negative message to the world, and it gives us less leverage then when we want to deal with countries that are abusing human rights.”
* Dodd, as usual, got shafted with too few questions during the debate, and then got shafted again with stupid questions after the debate.
* There were no questions on Iraq, Iran, the NIE, torture, Pakistan, terrorism or national security in general. There was, however, a question about New Year’s resolutions. Hmm.
* Despite no questions on Iraq, Dems brought it up anyway — far more than Republicans did the day before.
* If you rely on the focus groups, Edwards and Obama had very good afternoons.
So, what’d you think?