Wow!---thats all I can say. Watching last night's CNN Democratic debate felt like watching a high speed car crash---where you just know it's going to get uglier and uglier but you just can't turn away.
The first half of the debate, in addition to housing the fireworks between Clinton and Obama, had some rather odd moments. For one, it seemed as if Obama had rehearsed lines that he was determined to get in on Clinton regardless of what the topic of the question was. In the first ten minutes, Obama was asked a question about the economy, but instead of spending his one minute of time answering the question, he attacked Bill Clinton. It was just plain weird to see a question on the economy turn into an attack on Bill Clinton, which of course drew a response from Clinton, and then one back again from Obama and so on.
One thing I was shocked to see, and I say this from a completely unbiased point of view, was that Obama took the Clintons' bait. It was overtly obvious to anyone watching the past few days that Bill and Hillary wanted to distract Obama from the issues and get inside his head. And to my surprise, Bill threw out the bait and Obama jumped on it. It was unproductive for Obama last night, it terms of the more or less national race coming February 5, to attack Bill Clinton. Obama has South Carolina locked up with its 50% + African American vote, but Super Tuesday is another story. And by taking the Clintons' bait and attacking Hillary and Bill, rather than answering the questions, Obama was reduced to nothing more than a mere politician. If I was Obama and I was put in his position, going up against the Clinton machine, I would have risen above the fray and tried to appear untouchable.
Why Obama aggressively and persistently went after the Clintons, particularly Bill, is beyond my comprehension. Does he not understand that he played right into the Clintons' hands last night? This should be common sense for anyone, especially someone with the savvy of Obama---you don't attack Bill Clinton in a Democratic Primary race. It's just plain stupid.
And to make matters even worse for Obama last night, he was the one who started the entire fight, and trust me, it was a fight. Usually it's Hillary who makes a charge against her opponents and more or less starts the dialogue. Last night it was Obama who appeared overly eager to throw the first punch. But as Obama found out, Clinton can hit back pretty hard too. After several minutes of back and forth bickering, Obama made a comment about Clinton and Wal-Mart. Clinton, clearly having had enough, hit Obama back with the whole Rezco scandal, which does deserve more attention than it's gotten. You could just tell by the look on Obama's face that he was not ready for that, and he was pretty much "well-behaved" for the rest of the debate.
Again, I'll say that those opening moments clearly rattled Obama. The candidates were asked about a bill that came to the Senate that would put a cap on interest rates for credit cards at 30%. Clinton voted for it, Obama against it. Clinton made the charge that by not voting to put a cap on how high credit cards could charge a customer interest, Obama was playing right into the corporate lobbyists' hands. Obama then gave the most bizarre comeback of this campaign season: he voted against it because he though that 30% was too high. John Edwards, who has mostly sided with Obama in previous debates, turned to Obama, with the a priceless look on his face, and simply asked Obama how the hell does it make sense that you vote against a 30% cap, which by default would allow a company to charge as much interest as they like, and then say it was because the cap was too high. Isn't a 30% cap better than a 100% cap?
Edwards also went after Obama over his liberal use of the "present" vote in the Illinois State Senate. This is really telling, because as Edwards said, if you agree with a bill, you vote yes, if you don't, you vote no. The present vote is nothing more than a cheap shot at political cover. Instead of taking a stand on tough issues, Obama decided to straddle the middle. As Edwards said, America needs a President who is not afraid to take tough positions; America needs a President who will stand up and fight for a progressive agenda.
The best and most substantive policy debate of the night came over the issue of healthcare. From what I could tell, both Clinton and Edwards looked great defending true universal healthcare. Democrats have wanted universal healthcare for over a decade, and it's appealing to many to hear Clinton and Edwards stand up firmly for it. They both correctly pointed out that Obama's plan is not universal. Every American will not be insured; in fact, an estimated 15 million or more would be left without healthcare coverage. In 2008, with a Democratic Congress and Democratic President, universal healthcare can get passed. It would be sad to pass up that opportunity, both in my mind and in the mind of many other Democrats.
So who won the debate? Clearly Edwards. Not because he was particularly great last night, but because the spat between Clinton and Obama virtually cancelled each candidate out. Unfortunately for Edwards, it's just too late for him to make a comeback. So in that sense, when you realize that it's now a Clinton-Obama race, Clinton won the debate. Obama played to the South Carolina base, and did well on that front. But on the national scale, Clinton was the winner.
