In the First Democratic Debate, Clinton Shows That She Really Does Know How to Play the Game

In the First Democratic Debate, Clinton Shows That She Really Does Know How to Play the Game

In the First Democratic Debate, Clinton Shows That She Really Does Know How to Play the Game

And she typified all that is good, and bad, about Democratic liberalism.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Las Vegas—“Enough with the damn e-mails!” There were plenty of debatable moments in the Democratic Debate: Did Bernie Sanders succeed in making democratic socialism safe for work? Has the passage of eight more years made Hillary Clinton’s vote to go to war in Iraq less unforgivable? Is Martin O’Malley doing more damage to Clinton or Sanders? Will Jim Webb show up? Does Lincoln Chafee exist?

But there really can’t be any doubt that the soundbite of the evening, and the money shot for the television audience, came when, after listening to Clinton run through her dismissal of the e-mail controversy, Sanders responded, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails.” It was the one moment all night when the whole hall erupted in applause, with the CNN cameras cutting to a shot of Jesse Jackson standing and clapping.

What was interesting about that moment was that, although they were all clapping together, the Sanders and Clinton supporters were clapping for different reasons. The Clinton people perceived, rightly, that by the terms of the typical gotcha score-keeping that we have gotten accustomed to, Sanders had just handed his opponent a great gift. What the Sanders people saw was their candidate showing, in the starkest possible terms, his disdain for that kind of politics.

Before the debate there had been a lot of speculation about whether any of the other three candidates would seize a chance to break through tonight. Martin O’Malley tried his best, hitting Clinton hard on her Iraq war vote—which she rebutted easily by pointing out that her vote hadn’t kept him from endorsing her in 2008. And O’Malley’s folksy manner, his stress on the need for new leadership, and the sharp left turn he’s taken since his days as a stalwart of the Democratic Leadership Council might give him enough of a poll bump to make him the Democrats’ own Marco Rubio. Meanwhile, Jim Webb, a serious man with complex ideas, nearly reduced his own candidacy to the slogan “He Shoots to Kill.” And Lincoln Chafee showed why no one should ever inherit a parent’s seat in the Senate.

In terms of the main event, though, we learned that Hillary really does know how to play this game. Not just for the way she excoriated Bernie for his record on gun control, or for the way she used a question about parental leave to pivot left, declaring, “I know we can afford it. Because we’re going to make the wealthy pay.” But because she seems to have figured out how to look presidential without seeming entitled—at least on television.

Sanders, too, did well enough to satisfy his supporters. He stuck to his guns, and his issues, and showed a typical—but refreshing—flash of unscripted candor when he was asked whether he would end the NSA’s surveillance program and he replied, “Of course.” But over the course of the night his answers also revealed the fundamental difference between his approach and Clinton’s. Although she described herself as “a progressive,” Clinton typifies all that is good—and bad—about Democratic liberalism. She wants to tinker, and tweak, and make the system fairer. Sanders wants to tear it down, and to do that he really will need a movement, not just a mobilization. Because for Sanders, unlike Clinton, being electable isn’t nearly going to be enough.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x