The Democrats faced off last evening in South Carolina, but they might as well have been on the moon because all of the questions were posed by individuals who posted their queries on YouTube. I know I’m getting up there in age, but I found this more of an attempt by CNN to increase its ratings rather than a serious way to improve the quality of the debate. Why exactly is the video question better than having a live person in the studio actually asking the question himself? I admit that I’m partial to dialogue involving a real person rather than focusing on an image in cyberspace. But that’s just me. Also, it strikes me that the problem with these “debates” is not with the questions asked, but rather with finding a mechanism to force the candidates to actually answer the question asked. Moderator Anderson Cooper tried gamely, but he found diminishing success as the debate wore on (nearly two hours and 20 minutes).
As the young voter would say, Whatever. Here are some thoughts on the debate itself and how each candidate performed.
Debate Fatigue may be growing, but there seemed even fewer surprises than the last encounter. The candidates’ positions and strategies are becoming better known by now. The predicted “Assault on Hillary” did not materialize and the senator remains firmly in the lead.
There were fewer mentions of President Bush than I would have suspected. Maybe there’s Bush Fatigue also.
Democrats sure dislike American business, but apparently love the jobs they create. You couldn’t find a candidate who would not freely denounce oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies and (insert your favorite industry here). This field is totally focused on economic redistribution (from bad guys to good guys, of course) and not at all with wealth creation.
Thinking back just four years to the 2004 presidential debates, that field at least included the foreign policy realism of Joe Lieberman and Richard Gephardt. This field is outdoing itself to appease a rank-and-file moving ever leftward on national security issues.
How about the candidates?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was and is the clear front-runner. She is very poised and articulate in these encounters. No one really laid a glove on her. She managed to keep at least in the center of the foreign policy debate, which wasn’t that difficult considering everyone else moved left, especially Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards. She scored among serious Democrats by refusing an appeal by a questioner to meet with every despot and anti American dictator (Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, the nut who runs Iran) within one year after she became president. She also noticeably refused to give a date certain when all American troops would be out of Iraq.
Sen. Barack Obama. He’s always good, but never great, in these forums. He has so far failed to give definition to the “new politics” cause that is fueling his insurgency. He has spoken of bipartisanship (he mentioned Ronald Reagan twice last night), but that is not a winning issue in a Democratic primary contest. Unless he can identify an issue or cause specific to him, he will not supplant the front-runner. He also made a rookie mistake by foolishly agreeing with the Jerry Garcia-like questioner to meet with all known foreign despots.
John Edwards. He was the most aggressive in seeking the “fundamental change” mantle and endorsing the most liberal agenda (no nuclear power, out of Iraq immediately, government takeover of medicine) of all the major candidates. I just don’t think there’s enough strength there to ultimately prevail.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. He moved significantly left in this debate on Iraq, saying that he wanted American troops out by the end of the year. He tried in vain to force Anderson Cooper to ask the other candidates about keeping a residual force of troops in Iraq, which he opposes and Senator Clinton favors. I think he and other candidates will come back to this tactic.
Sen. Joseph Biden. He is always interesting in these encounters and speaks more candidly than the other candidates. He spoke most realistically about Iraq and the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal. Bill Richardson was accurate when he noted that Biden would make a terrific secretary of state in a Democratic administration.
Sen. Chris Dodd. He’s articulate and has great hair (his video was funny), but he’s the ultimate establishment candidate whose way is blocked by Senator Clinton.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich/Mike Gravel. It’s tempting to say that these guys are good for laughs, but their ultra-leftist positions make them appealing to a significant slice of the Democratic electorate.
In the final analysis, the dynamics of the race were not altered much by last night. It is clear that to displace the solid front-runner, Sen. Clinton, someone will have to attack her hard on her vote to authorize and defend the war in Iraq. After all, if that is the basic Democratic indictment of President Bush, how can their nominee justify such a vote?