the opinionist

The 2008 Democratic presidential hopefuls gathered this evening in the constantly-under-construction city of Chicago and the always-charming Soldier Field – home of the Chicago Bears. The insanely hot and humid weather a provided stark contrast to the frigid relations between front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton (D - N.Y.) and second-place Sen. Barack Obama (D. – Ill.) and the distant third-place candidate, former senator John Edwards. So was there any camaraderie among the three musketeers? Definitely not!

Each candidate entered tonight’s debate with a mission that had to be addressed quickly. Pre-debate, USAToday/Gallup reported that Edwards trails in third place with just 12 percent of the likely Democratic primary electorate — far behind Sen. Clinton (48 percent) and Sen. Obama (26 percent). Edwards’s mission: to find his sweet spot and demonstrate his worth in this debate – or else remain increasingly relegated to “also ran” status and out of serious contention.

The mission for Sen. Clinton, clearly the favorite of both the mainstream media and her Republican adversaries? Correct an ambiguity over her expressed trust and affection for the influencers of legislation: K Street lobbyists. For Sen. Obama - recently ridiculed by Republican presidential wannabe, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney for his ‘Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove’ metamorphosis – the mission was to either steer clear of foreign policy assertions or clearly and succinctly explain his desire to invade Pakistan and attack President Bush’s unstable ally in the “War on Terror,” General Musharraf.

The second tier of candidates clearly entered the debate with absolutely nothing to lose except the cash-debilitating effects of being labeled a “hopeless” candidate with little or no chance of becoming anything more than a cute election-process-tchotchke.

The AFL/CIO - an organization serving proud blue-collar labor unions – suggested many loaded questions that covered nationalized healthcare, worker rights, job-creation policies, and pension-protection measures. Surprisingly, foreign policy focused less on Iraq and more on the skewed Chinese trade imbalances and the migration of manufacturing jobs to other countries.

MS-NBC’s Keith Olbermann maintained a rapid but wholly friendly pace of questions and the array of discussions were diverse and well crafted. The audience – labor union workers – applauded sensible, honest, or just plain populist answers with loudly and derisively jeered those candidates who took the easier paths of waffling, dodging, and criticisms of fellow-party candidates.

Sen. Obama managed to dance very lightly and with well-rehearsed deftness around questions of his foreign policy naiveté and stuck to his “diplomacy first - heavy stick second” sound bite on Pakistan, Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan. His argument firmly rested on coalition failures in Iraq and the neglect of Afghanistan.

He deftly explained the U.S. was not safer since 9/11 and that Bush’s misadventures in Iraq had accomplished little besides fanning the flames of anti-Americanism and the neglect of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

“I want to fight on the right battlefield,” he explained. “Afghanistan! Not Iraq.”

Edwards continued to label other candidates as Washington insiders who were anything but the change Americans wanted. He argued Washington had consistently let the average working American down, that America didn’t want to replace one Washington insider with another – but with real change. He loudly voiced his opposition to lobbyist money and what he views as the rigged system.

“Give the power back to Americans by saying ‘No’ forever to the money and influence of lobbyists.”

With great energy, all of the candidates leaped on the topic of infrastructure – the decay and neglect of America’s roads, waterways and environment. Each eagerly poured the sticky blame on the Bush White House, ranging from the Katrina disaster in New Orleans the use of federal and state money to fund sports stadiums (to the detriment of more important infrastructure obligations ). Somehow, President Bush failed here also and the audience nodded their heads in agreement.

There were some firefights between candidates, with most attacks coming from second-tier candidates including Sen. Joe Biden (D. – Del.). Joe got his chance to tear into Sen. Obama and appeared to thoroughly enjoy it. When Obama has been asked about NAFTA, he has declared his desire to personally phone Mexico and Canada and inform them of his desire to revoke or heavily reform the much maligned trade agreement. His often-used, well-crafted catchphrase, “Trade agreements should be good for Main Street, not just Wall Street” was a mild applause line. Biden took the opportunity to stomach-punch Sen. Obama by replying, “A president’s role is to create jobs, not export jobs. It is a distinct lack of presidential leadership to ask Mexico and Canada to help fix things.”

When Sen. Christopher Dodd (D.- Conn.) was challenged by Olbermann to explain his description of Obama’s foreign policy statements as “confusing and unwise,” an uninvited Sen. Clinton willingly stepped into the breach with her own opinion on the matter. “It is a very big mistake to telegraph the world with what we’d do … Pakistan has nuclear weapons. When Musharraf is gone, his replacements will have these weapons. Think big but don’t tell everyone what you think.”

This quip actually backfired for Clinton and Obama seized the chance to push the point further in his favor by saying, “I did not say we’d go into Pakistan unilaterally. I said we should work with Musharraf to fix the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Americans have the right to know about this debate – not just Washington’s insiders.”

The strongest attack of the night was launched by Sen. Biden against the seemingly opportunistic John Edwards. When Edwards boasted of his participation in union pickets and town hall meetings, Biden threw back a charge of political grandstanding and campaign trail theater, saying Edwards had only gotten involved in union activities and support since his declared interest in the 2008 presidential process. It was a charge Edwards deftly manhandled and the blowback effect on Biden was more than a few naughty jeers from the audience of labor union activists.

The clown in the crowd – the court jester – remained Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D. – Ohio). His honesty and refreshing radicalism were marred by the sheer improbability of his campaign. When he continually uttered specific anti-Bush keywords, the decent reception he received from the audience was like the way a parent might patronize a tired but eager 3 year old showing off his wooden blocks. Entertaining but bordering on silly!

So who won? Each of the top three candidates needed to wipe a few ugly ambiguities off their policy declarations and wild statements of opinion before the stains became permanent. This was accomplished quite successfully by all three – with the mild exception of Hillary, whose support for lobbyists “that are just hard-working Americans like you and me” will remain a bit too grisly to swallow.

It almost seemed as if the second-tier candidates tag-teamed their assaults on one popular candidate while cuddling gently and with a touchy-feely camaraderie with another top-tier hopeful. Biden attacked Edwards while praising Clinton. Dodd continued his critique of Obama but had pleasantries for Edwards. And Kucinich? He attacked everyone but did so with great gusto and humor.

The media obsession with debate winners and losers will certainly continue in the coming days as the debate continues to be dissected. New opinion polls will add some clarity to the leader board and trends will emerge. The debate was successful however in promoting greater thought, consideration, and discussion among those who attended the Soldier Field forum and the few dozen cable TV viewers who watched it live on MS-NBC. That is a result we can all be proud of.

Posted on August 8th, 2007 under 2008, Barack Obama, Biden, Bush, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Kucinich, Presidential Election •  Email This Post • RSS 2.0 feed • Leave a response, or trackback