Edwards Excels in Ferocious Democratic Debate

Maybe Nevada was a turning point in the Democratic presidential race, because Monday's CNN debate started tough and got unusually ugly in a hurry.

Barack Obama continued to challenge both Clintons for pushing a series of assertions that were "not factually accurate," teeing off controversial comments that the former President made about the Nevada Caucus. Accused of inaccuracy, Sen. Clinton hit back with inaccuracy, claiming that Obama said he "really liked" President Reagan's ideas. In fact, Obama actually said Reagan helped establish the GOP as "the party of ideas," which Obama was quick to stress in a rebuttal. Then he applied the Stoller Maxim -- use your rivals' lies to reveal their character -- to argue that Clinton's conduct raises questions about whether she can earn the public trust and be an effective advocate for change. "Truthfulness during campaigns matters," he thundered for emphasis.

Clinton was more Rovian in her attacks, as she tried to pin Obama with her own foibles. Assailing his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate, Clinton chided Obama: "It is very difficult having a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility!" The accusation drew boos from the crowd. (The Times reported that Clinton's line caused "huge boos from the audience for the first time.") Yet while Clinton and Obama exchanged their personal barbs, John Edwards broke through with the best arguments of the night.

Edwards tweaked both his opponents for making the debate about political squabbling instead of public policy. Returning to his populist economic platform -- especially salient as Americans ponder a recession -- he reminded voters that he was the only candidate to outline a comprehensive plan to end poverty, and the first to introduce a national economic stimulus proposal. His plan came out weeks before Clinton and Obama. The program drove the "party's policy agenda," as Paul Krugman explained, by advocating "aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments," and alternative energy, (most of which Clinton later adopted in her plan). And while the debate moderators kept pushing trite racial questions, even asking Obama if Bill Clinton was the "first black president," Edwards outlined a vision of racial and economic equality, where "every American is of equal value."

Comments (21)

1. Then Obama applied the Stoller Maxim -- use your rivals' lies to reveal their character -- to argue that Clinton's conduct raises questions about whether she can earn the public trust and be an effective advocate for change.

   Yeah, she leveled a withering stare at Obama during this. She was clearly pissed. Especially when Obama claimed something she said and she corrected him saying, "I didn't say that. Bill said that" or something to that effect. Which Obama responded, "I can't tell sometimes who I'm running against."

   Ouch. This debate was better than the playoff games yesterday.

   Unfortunately, you can see the same type of stuff during daytime soap operas. Not really what one wants to see of a potential president.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/21/2008 @ 9:52pm

2. edwards winced when blitzer asked the final mlk (i.e race for ratings) question as if saying "fuck, not that again."

   hillary -- plastic

   obama -- um, um

   edwards -- go get 'em (oh well, too late. why didn't you do this in '03?)

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 10:04pm

3. "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

   For those of you who still have not heard:

   There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

   So please, SPREAD THE WORD!

   http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

   YES WE CAN

   Anne

   Posted by annevilla at 01/21/2008 @ 10:28pm

4. Edwards benefited by Hillary's distortion of Obama's record, which required Obama to respond rather than stay on topic.

   Wolf Blitzer did a TERRIBLE job of moderating the debate, allowing candidates to interrupt each other and stray off topic.

   I don't think any of this helps Hillary in South Carolina, and it will not turn off black voters to Obama.

   Edwards may place better than he would have in SC, but he still doesn't get the win he needs to be a viable candidate. But with Hillary's constant distortions of Obama's record, she may come in third behind Obama and Edwards.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/21/2008 @ 10:31pm

5. cnn sucks. how can you have commercials during a debate?

   "ms. clinton personally endorses vitameatavegamin"

   "mr. obama smokes clean coal"

   "mr. edwards endorses pantene"

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 10:51pm

6. ooooh, look.

   applause-o-meter!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 10:54pm

7. This was Edwards' best debate performance. He highlighted the campaign finance issue more than he has in the past. He got back to talking about poverty (it should have been the priority in the NH and Nevada debates though), and I think he hurt Clinton bad. When she wouldn't say that she would have the troops out in a year and when she wouldn't say that she would keep lobbyists out of the White House it really made her look like the status quo candidate he accused her of being.

   I don't know why he lets Obama get away with the explanation he gives on this issue of corporate donors. The idea that all the millions coming in from drug companies and Wall Street are small contributions that have nothing to do with the corporate interests of those concerned is silly and naive. If Edwards is going to press this point he needs to come armed with evidence of top executives who have given large sums, of corporates sponsored fundraisers that have given money to Obama, etc. Bringing it up just to say 'fair point' to the pollyanish response Obama gives is just a way of making Obama look better than Clinton on this matter. Maybe it is his goal to help Obama win if he cannot win. Not the worst in the world, and definetly better than putting the DLC back in power, but still not the right goal.

   He also needs to get away from 'the cause of my life' and 'fight of my life' crap. He didn't support the legislation that a lifelong opponent of poverty should have supported in the Senate. What we need to be wholehearted Edwards supporters is not just a good presentation of the issues now (he blows the other two away at this), but an explanation for why he was wrong in the past. We know the war is wrong. We know (well anyone who doesn't support Clinton knows) that it is a vote to be apologized for. But an explanation makes an apology more beleivable and can help restore confidence in the judgment making abilities of the candidate. I think there are credible explanations given his role in the Senate at the time. But he hasn't given them, and he has to at some point. He came close in that Charlie Rose interview that B_Kool was posting a few weeks back, but even then it was not made explicit. And this wouldn't necessarily hurt him. Make reforming the American political system a priority by saying that 'I have tried to work within the system, and within the gradual conservative strategy of the Clinton wing of the party, and it doesn't work; you end up lots of votes you want back.' Making himself the former insider who can tell you the inside story about how the money works and about how the interests make themselves felt would be more credible than just focusing on lobbyists and PACs. And he needs to support mandatory public financing of candidates.

   I am really glad that Clinton looked so bad. I got my hopes foolishly high after Iowa and have been really depressed for the last couple weeks. It was nice to hear the boo-ing. It was nice to see her put off balance. I would like more of this.

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/21/2008 @ 11:00pm

8. It was nice to hear the boo-ing. It was nice to see her put off balance. I would like more of this.

   Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/21/2008 @ 11:00pm

   wait till the general election when the whitewaterboaters start.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 11:04pm

9. While I don't think there is a huge difference between Clinton and McCain on the issues, I do think the diffferences there are present good enough reason to prefer her. So in the generals, while I wouldn't vote for her, I wouldn't want to see her lose (I might have to hold my nose and vote for her if New York somehow comes into play, but I doubt that will happen). I also don't like to see whitewater shit becuase from everything I have seen that is just a fabricated charge. But there are enough attacks from the left that can be made in the primary that a republican won't be able to use effectively that I think I have a chance of being pleased for a while like I was tonight.

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/21/2008 @ 11:16pm

10. Speaking of McCain, another `Roadmap' to (partial) Redemption, courtesy of the WSJ.....

    Now McCain Must Convince The Right

    By FRED BARNES

    January 22, 2008; Page A19

    John McCain has a problem. After winning South Carolina's primary last Saturday, he should be the overwhelming favorite to capture the Republican presidential nomination. He's not, at least not yet, and the reason is that he's alienated so many conservatives over the past eight years.

    Mr. McCain may become the Republican nominee anyway -- in spite of thunderous opposition by conservatives including radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, former Sen. Rick Santorum, and American Conservative Union (ACU) head David Keene. Even then, to win the general election, he must find a way to reconcile with conservatives and unify the Republican Party.

    Mr. McCain will have to take the initiative to repair the relationship, and he appears ready to do just that.

    His victory speech in South Carolina marked a new step..."We want government to do its job, not your job," he said, "and to do it with less of your money." He praised "free markets, low taxes and small government."

    Moreover,....His congressional voting record is predominantly conservative (ACU rating 82.3%),.....He's already stepped outside his comfort zone on taxes, endorsing a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%......

    It's worth noting the presence of supply-sider Jack Kemp and spending foe Phil Gramm on the McCain team. In fact, the Arizona senator has attracted an impressive array of conservative supporters,......

    ......Mr. Limbaugh declared last week that the nomination of John McCain or Mike Huckabee would "destroy the Republican Party . . . change it forever, be the end of it.".......

    Spotlighting his conservative positions is a start.....As Mr. McCain campaigns in Florida before next Tuesday's primary, a visit to Rush Limbaugh's home in Palm Beach to discuss conservative issues makes sense.

    Ultimately, Mr. McCain doesn't have to make conservatives adore him. But he'll never be president unless he persuades them he's the most conservative candidate available with a credible chance of winning the White House. That shouldn't be too hard a sell.

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 12:34am

11. "how can you have commercials during a debate?"

    Easy, especially as CNN is wholly owned by TimeWarner. And TW couldn't give a fig about We the People owning the airways or any other ways, certainly not as long as CNN is confined to cable channels, which TW wholly owns.

    Posted by sloper at 01/22/2008 @ 03:27am

12. Clintons-----------------------------------------------------Truth

    Polar opposites

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/22/2008 @ 10:18am

13. A nomination by the Democrats of Hillary Clinton for President will split this nation like no other act since the Civil War. Do you want to see a general election that is about ideas and whats best for the country? Democrats nominate Obama ---Republicans nominate McCain.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/22/2008 @ 10:26am

14. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/22/2008 @ 10:26am

    600,000 people DIED in the Civil War, LEN. Bit hyperbolic, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 10:54am

15. Edwards problem is that he is perennially Junior. He has a cocky boyishness that makes him seem not old enough yet. Obama is suave. Clinton is just crass. To be a true populist requires that ability to connect. It isn't a perfect fit for Edwards--but he deserves credit for sincerity and commitment.

    Posted by Lil at 01/22/2008 @ 11:31am

16. 600,000 people DIED in the Civil War, LEN. Bit hyperbolic, huh?

    Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 10:54am

    oh. now i get it. bushco. wanted the iraqis to experience the same birth pangs of democracy as you guys did.

    how sweet.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 11:48am

17. I don't watch the debates and turn the channel anytime a politician comes on to promote themselves.I try to ignore politicians words and try to just look at their actions.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/22/2008 @ 12:46pm

18. Edwards wins when you get past the press assertions that Hillary is representing the aspirations of women and Obama is representing the aspirations of blacks, and get to the issues that truely represent how those aspirations can be obtained. Unfortunely the press is only interested in impressions not ideas. Except here at the Nation of course. Edwards may have come to some of these positions since 2004, but I believe that he grew into these positions from back then. If you heard his two Americas speech from back, then you knew his heart was in the right place.

    Posted by wmnorton at 01/22/2008 @ 2:46pm

19. 600,000 people DIED in the Civil War, LEN. Bit hyperbolic, huh

    I said since the Civil War----therefore I did not include the Civil War in comparison. I stand by my statement.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/22/2008 @ 2:50pm

20. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/22/2008 @ 2:50pm

    So, we'd see people being shot with fire hoses and dogs sicced on them in the streets, churches blown up, leadership killed...as we saw during the Civil Rights movement then?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 2:57pm

21. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 11:48am

    Well you know they say war is the best economic stimulator. So maybe this will just help their economy.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/22/2008 @ 4:57pm