The Democrats Debate

Last night’s Democratic debate was by far the liveliest of all the encounters thus far. Maybe it’s because time is running out and candidates not named Hillary Clinton were desperate to close the gap with the front-runner. In any case, the dialogue was compelling and while Clinton survived the all-out assault, her opponents did land some punches that might affect the race, especially in the early-primary states.

Sen. Clinton, as the overwhelming front-runner, expected to take heat — and she did. Many times she gave as good as she received. She started out well, deflecting charges by criticizing Bush and Cheney and trying to paper over policy differences with her opponents. However, John Edwards especially and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) scored by citing their differences with her on Iraq. She was also in full “triangulation” mode and resolutely refused to state a clear position on issues like Rep. Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) tax reform plan or New York Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Her opponents scored by again raising doubts about her electability.

Obama had a strong performance, perhaps his best of the campaign. He raised differences with Clinton, but in such a roundabout way that the main point was often lost. Still, he did outline his differences with her, especially on Iraq and foreign policy. He’ll have to be more specific about the priorities of an Obama administration before he can begin to close the gap with her.

Edwards executed his game plan to perfection. Time and again he was able to draw sharp differences with the front-runner, on combat troops in Iraq, on money from Washington lobbyists, on the need for real change. The question is whether there are enough Democratic primary voters who agree with his populist, angry, anti-establishment message for him to have a real chance for the nomination. All eyes will be focused on how this performance plays in Iowa, which is by far his best state.

Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) gave a strong performance and even mixed it up with Hillary by questioning her electability. Time and again, he referred to specific bills or issues that he worked on in a long and distinguished political career. Sadly for him, most primary voters are less interested in legislative achievement (see Bob Dole’s campaign) than uplifting rhetoric and personal charisma.

Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) did nothing to hurt his chances of becoming the next secretary of state. He had the best line of the evening with his stinging criticism of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the GOP front-runner.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) was articulate if a bit ponderous. He’s probably in the running for vice president.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) acknowledged that he once saw a UFO.

Two points about the rhetoric of this debate. First, Democrats must be careful that in their zeal to criticize President Bush. Also, they don’t sound like they’re aware of the continuing threat from radical Islam and Iran specifically. The candidates seemed pained to acknowledge the threat that Iran poses to the world and that, yes, they would do what they could to keep the Mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Second, while calling for “sacrifice” from Americans, the candidates then proceeded to outline more spending for healthcare, education, and tax relief — all to be paid for by, drum roll please, the RICH. At last count, the top 1 percent of taxpayers contributed 40 percent of the tax receipts. Morally and practically, how high would Democrats like to see that figure go? Is there not a point where wealth creation is affected by confiscatory tax rates?