Hillary's inspiration deficit

Most people I have spoken to, and I think most commentators, found John Edwards to be much the most impressive candidate at last night’s Democratic debate in South Carolina. He at least conveyed a sense of urgent interest in the issues, which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did not. Hillary was too busy attacking Obama, and Obama was too busy responding to her charges. Their squabbling was a depressing thing to watch.

As in previous debates, Hillary mostly out-argued Obama. As before, she was forceful and controlled, and he was muddled and hesitant. I think he succeeded in debunking her accusations, but he was far from impressive, and I often found myself having to give him the benefit of the doubt (for instance, when he explained, sort of, why he voted “present” rather than “no” to objectionable pieces of Illinois legislation). Hillary smiled as he stumbled, radiating smugness and contempt—not her most appealing posture.

She cannot believe, I imagine, that Obama routinely does business with slum landlords, or that he is less intent on widening access to affordable health care than she is, or that he is a secret, albeit wavering, supporter of the war in Iraq, or any of the other things she seemed to imply. Her chances of convincing Democratic voters that he is as feckless and vacillating a man as she says also seem slim. Then what is the tactical calculation? How is this misdirected aggression, which I would like to believe sullies her more than it hurts her intended victim, supposed to pay off?

Perhaps the idea is just to unsettle Obama and make him look weak. And he did look weak. He did not dare to rise above the quarrels the Clintons are picking with him—as the spirit of his campaign really obliges him to—and then having chosen to respond he failed to crush her, as I think a more effective debater could have. On the face of it, it is pretty audacious for Hillary Clinton, of all people, to attack Obama for lack of experience, for vacillation, for “failing to take responsibility”, for saying one thing and meaning another. A skilful debater could have shredded her for that, but this is not Obama’s strength. He seems to lack the instinct, and evidently the rhetorical means, to destroy an opponent—not something you could say of Hillary. If he fights the campaign the way the Clintons are forcing him to fight it, he puts himself at a big disadvantage.

After the debate, CNN aired an Obama ad: “There is no liberal America, no conservative America, there is only the United States of America.” Maybe it is just empty rhetoric, but I have to say my spirits lifted. After the debate’s mean-spirited back and forth, a little inspiration was welcome. That, for sure, is something Obama can do.

Comments

If you were watching the same debate as I was, then surely you could see Obama started the fight. Hillary wasn't interested in attacking Obama. She was merely responding to his attacks. He first called names when he mentioned Walmart. He's the one who's been complaining about the Clintons ever since he lost New Hampshire. I mean this guy is a cry-baby. If he grows up and talks policies, then I will consider voting for him. But unfortunately, he is as sneaky as anyone else in DC. His entire campaign is so rehearsed that I really don't know who the real Obama is. I can no longer give him the benefit of doubt. He is just about as cold and calculating as any other DC politician albeit slightly on the inexperienced side.

Posted by John | January 22, 2008 7:22 PM

I thought this was Obama's most passionate debate.
He showed that he can fight the Clintons, while
also exposing Hillary's biggest liabilities - her meanness and her untrustworthiness.

Posted by Ni | January 22, 2008 7:47 PM

The State
South Carolina’s Largest Newspaper

Opinion
Posted on Tue, Jan. 22, 2008

Obama most likely Democrat to unify America

Andrew Haworth / The State
Sen. Barack Obama speaks to members of The State's Editorial Board on Monday.

 The State's Editorial Board endorses Barack Obama

- The State editorial board's Democratic presidential primary endorsement
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in South Carolina this year offers voters an unusual choice. Earlier votes have winnowed out the most experienced candidates, leaving a field with fewer accomplishments and differences on policy, but including two candidates who come with the promise to make history just because of who they are.
Looking at the remaining field: Rep. Dennis Kucinich offers a bold plan on health care, but his platform is an odd fit for us and for many in South Carolina. John Edwards has morphed away from the optimist who won South Carolina in 2004. The candidate who stayed mostly above the fray four years ago is angry now, and pushing hard to turn working-class angst into political opportunity. He also has tried to one-up the other top Democrats with the least prudent plan for withdrawing from Iraq.
On positions from Iraq to health care, the policy differences between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are minute. Much of the debate between them has involved making these molehills look mountainous or clashing over who-shifted-when.
The one most significant difference between them can be found in how they would approach the presidency - and how the nation might respond.
Hillary Clinton has been a policy wonk most of her life, a trait she has carried into the U.S. Senate. As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state’s issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines.
But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.
Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.
Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.
Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.
He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America’s moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.
Despite America’s bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.
And America certainly has things to get done.
From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.
He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary.(End of Endorsement)

According to CNN Election Center 2008, 2,025 delegates will be needed to win the Democratic nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention to be held in Denver August 25-28. Current pledged delegate totals before the South Carolina Democratic primary election Saturday January 26 are: Obama 38, Clinton 36, and Edwards 18.
Florida will be meaningless to Democrats because like Michigan all Democratic delegates have been declared illegal by the national committee because of the state party’s non compliance in setting their primary date no sooner than Super Tuesday February 5.

But do many Super Tuesday voters currently know very much about Barack Obama?

In his books Barack Obama has told the story of the family into which he was born, about a father from Kenya whom he barely knew and about his young American mother who along with his father were college students in Hawaii.

By age 6 young Barack was already living in Jakarta with his mother and his Indonesian step father before abruptly moving back to Hawaii at age 10 to be raised by his maternal grandparents when his mother and her second husband divorced.

Over the years Barack Obama had bonding experiences with white and black relatives and with Asian family members amidst an understandable struggle to find his own identity. Through it all he developed a keen ability to understand and to resonate with people of various ethnic backgrounds.

Barack Obama worked his way through the racial complexities into which he was born to graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and become president of the Harvard Law Review. He served in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years and in 2004 won a 70 % landslide election to become a United States Senator.

Barack Obama has had 46 years of personal experience in understanding how perceptions of ethnicity and judgments about race can divide people and he is uniquely qualified to bring a sense of unity and common purpose to all Americans.

In 1963 (when Obama was just 2 years old) on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech that included the familiar phrase of "not being judged by the color of one's skin but by the content of one's character." That speech, of course, helped prompt passage of the 1964 US Civil rights Act and the next year, King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If the people of America elect Barack Obama to be their 44th President in November of this year King's dream will have become much more than just a dream.

Was Barack Obama's reported opposition to America initiating the Iraq war a “fairytale” and has his position on the war been “inconsistent”?

Senator Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks October 2, 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago:

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I Don't Oppose All Wars

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that…we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Barack Obama delivered his powerful speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago October 2, 2002 against the US beginning war in Iraq while later that same month Hillary Clinton voted for the authorization to begin US military action in Iraq. Once US troops were actually in Iraq and fighting a war, of course, it would be irresponsible for Obama to be against funding the troops. The key is that Barack Obama had the judgment to see the dumbness of the war in October 2002 and clearly said so. Hillary Clinton did not and voted to start it.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's tactic of trying to paint Obama's war position as "a fairy tale" or as "inconsistent" is merely "Clinton politics" and clearly demonstrates why America badly needs the enormous breath of fresh air Barack Obama provides. At one time Senator Kerry from Nebraska referred to the Clinton's as "clever liars" several years before President Bill Clinton told America: "I did not have sex with that woman!" or as Jay Leno quipped, "He didn't have sex with her, she had it with him!"

Goodbye Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hello Barack Obama.

Should Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton Become the Democratic Party’s Nominee for President in 2008?

Which candidate is best able to inspire Americans with a new vision of a better America both domestically and in foreign affairs that will attract sufficient independent voters and disenchanted Republicans so that Democrats can win the general election in November?

Which candidate is least likely to cause a worsening division and polarization of voters and elected officials that maintains the partisan politics that currently paralyzes Washington?

Which candidate refuses campaign contributions from lobbyists and political action committees as a first step in seeking to change the money dominated special interest politics that currently rules Washington?

Which candidate has had the personal background and life experiences and possesses the vision and ability necessary to bring together Americans of all ethnic backgrounds be they white, Latino, Asian, African American, or Native American in a sense of common purpose, and also has the best chance of reintroducing America to the myriad of diverse countries around the world?

Which candidate do Americans most respect and admire given the facts of his or her personal family background, marriage relationship, intelligence and academic achievement, and the particular path by which he or she has become a candidate for president of the United States?

Which candidate does not have a spouse whose past political experience and personal behavior could prove to be a serious distraction that might needlessly complicate the office and duties of the President and potentially interfere with the normal functioning of cabinet officers?

Which candidate will the American people be able to trust when times are tough because he or she consistently values telling the truth, rather than choosing his or her words primarily with regard to the politics of the moment?

The inescapable answer is Barack Obama.

Posted by Robert | January 22, 2008 7:52 PM

A dynasty was good for J. R. Ewing, but they have not been so good for the people of The U.S.A. The Bush presidency is testimony to that.

The Clinton's experience would be valuable in the vice presidency or in the cabinet.

But we need a president who can inspire and lead.

We do not need a disbarred attorney and spouse of a nominee to create ill will in our own party.

We do not need to be patronized and treated as though voters are interfering with some preconceived dynastic plan.

In ancient cultures there may have been a belief in the divine right of kings (or queens), but in modern America, there is no belief in the divine right of Bubba.

:-)

Vote with your heart and don't be condescended to.

Posted by Robert Campbell | January 22, 2008 8:17 PM

Clive Crook:
I watched the debate from beginning to the end. It would not be any surprise to you that we saw the same thing but arrived at different conclusions due to our differing view lenses. In my opinion, it would be a huge mistake for a candidate to go into political debate with the intention to win by scoring points. Candidates want to speak to their various audiences in order to win their confidence and support. Last night, Senator Obama was speaking to SC audience in order to win the primary but still reserve his options for Feb 5 audience.

Obama has won substantial black males to his corner but not the black women. Black women will resent an attempt by white women to talk down in a condescending manner to black men. Hence, it is in Obama’s advantage to allow Hilary to be the aggressor but still push her back in a way that will not convey any tinge of sexism. Based on this premise, Obama did what he is supposed to do.

If Obama were to enter the debate to defeat Hilary, the outcrop will drive women voters away from him. Obama’s argument against Hilary is that she is not an honest enough to be trusted with the nation’s destiny; and that she does not have the character traits necessary to build and sustain functional coalition of disparate political views and ideologies.

I do not believe for one second that Obama is not a good debater but he deliberately wants to come off as poor debater for reason. A good debater will always have bag full of zingers to be dished out on occasion. A good debater will win arguments but comes off as canned. Obama’s charm and successes he has enjoyed today is because he seems authentic and real. For instance, Edward has done very well in all the debates but his support is in steady decline. He comes off as phony and overzealous.

One of the concerns people have about Obama is the belief that he is not strong enough to withstand Republican attack machine if he were to win the nomination. By trying to take on Hilary and Bill without appearing to be obnoxious, may appear like a political mistake, but it helps to elevate his status as a fighter with inner strength. He must not overdo it but just to show flashes of what is latent in him.

Posted by Edmonsky | January 22, 2008 8:18 PM

While I agree with the sentiment that stooping into the mud ring hurts Obama, he absolutely needed to take on Bill Clinton if he is to survive.

The tag team of bad cop Bill (with all the reverence the Dems seem to give him) and good cop Hillary (I'll work harder than anyone for you) had to be addressed. Obama was being swallowed by the massive Clinton free media exposure forwarding only their perspective on all the trivia around his candidacy.

They were in front of a Brown Black forum who doesn't forget that MLK believed in nonviolent civil disobedience, but never shrunk from having to speak truth to power.

Does Obama debate well? No. Keep in mind, though, his entire campaign is built around the idea of ridding our governance of the soundbite culture...that there are serious problems facing us that need to be addressed by the entire nation, not just the Democratic base.

It's a tough row to hoe, but win or lose, if Obama can bring both the Clinton and Reagan years and legacy back to reality instead of the misty eyed fondness that folks seem to hold, he will have done this nation a great service. Both those presidents contributed mightily to the situations we find ourselves in today, and until we can get back to reality, there will be no real progress toward meaningful and lasting solutions.

I would love to rid this country of the Clinton machine. Much like the Rove machine, they are more interested in themselves and their power than in real governance for all 300 million people.

Posted by G Davis | January 22, 2008 8:28 PM

The Clintons are like playground bullies. They play dirty and point fingers at others to avoid getting into trouble. If they win the nomination, I'll be voting Republican.

Posted by Judy Jenkins | January 22, 2008 9:43 PM

My interest is in integrity and honesty, not in any specific policy agenda. As a West Point graduate, I've spent the last five election cycles shaking my head and wringing my hands over my perception that we have lost the ability to be honest... not in our dealings with others, but with ourselves.

Case in point: we all saw the same debated, and we all came to our own conclusions. Clinton won, hands down. Obama won, without a doubt. Clinton won by accident, as much as I hate to admit it, or Clinton lost despite her best efforts, as much as I hate to admit it (or as much as it pleases me, whichever your point of view).

By and large, I can count on Atlantic readers to keep their head above the fray, eyes on the target, and most importantly, ears wide open. But still, our personal biases slip in to our assessments.

Keep up the good work, Atlantic Monthly. There's hope for this country, if folks like you can keep providing thoughtful analysis.

Posted by Opsimath | January 22, 2008 10:17 PM

I am tired of hearing Hillary and Obama go at it, it does not help democrats. John Edwards did the Best by far on last nights debate. He is right to focus on the middle and lower class, and what worries me is so many people hate hillary and others think Obama is wimpy. Not to mention I don't care what people say, the US is still deeply racist and sexist. The fact that women and blacks are paid much less than men and whites proves that. The racism may not be out in the open but it is there. Vote for Edwards because he is the best candidate to win the Presidential election, which matters much more than the democratic nominee. I hope people are smart enough not to waste the great opportunity that bush has given us.

Posted by Martin | January 23, 2008 12:23 AM

If Edwards' voting record even remotely matched his rhetoric he'd be credible.

It doesn't and he isn't.

He is a fine debater though...how many years of courtroom training did he have?

Posted by G Davis | January 23, 2008 4:18 AM

At this point, the Clintons depress me. The idea of Hillary Clinton in office depresses me. And I have hope that Obama will eek it out, but it's looking harder for him every day.

And the sad thing is, I think the country needs him right now.

Posted by Rhoda | January 23, 2008 11:36 AM

Clive Crook: I thought Obama defended himself very effectively - in fact, more than defending himself, he made his response to the Clinton attacks central to his pitch against them. For a month, he's been saying the Bill failed to build a working majority; in SC he said very clearly that the Clintons could not build such a majority *because of* their truthiness issues. The messsage was not just 'stop lying about my record,' it was 'those who lie can't fly.'

Posted by Asp | January 23, 2008 11:58 AM

Democrats may be inclined to like Hillary when she's combative, but the footage of her going ballistic it out there for the republicans to use come the general. It's really going to come down to whether 51% of the country just hates her passive aggressive shit come election day.

One thing I think we can be confident of is that she won't get a honeymoon like other presidents. Starting "Day One", it's back to the presidency circa 1994.

Posted by Helter | January 23, 2008 3:20 PM

I FIND THAT THE WAY RESPONSES IN THE SPOOF CALLED A DEBATE SHOWED THE TRUE SIDE OF HILLARY AND OBAMA. I FEEL THAT A VOTE FOR HILLARY IS A RETURN TO THE SEXUAL ESCAPADES OF BILL CLINTON IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE UNABLE TO HANDLE THE CLINTONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN.
BILL CLINTON, EVEN THOUGH PARDONED BY THEN PRE. CARTER (NOW THERE WAS A REAL JOKE PRESIDENT) FOR BEING A VIETNAM WAR DRAFT DODGER AND RUNNING OFF TO EUROPE TO "FIND" HIMSELF SHOULD BE IN PRISON, AND HIS WIFE DISCRACED FOR BACKING HIM. THE CLINTONS HAVE BEEN PAID $20-MILLON DOLLARS FOR THEIR MEMOIRS, YET FOR EIGHT YEARS LIED UNDER OATH THEY COULD NOT REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THEY DID ILLEGALLY, THESE ARE TRUE HIPOCTITS--AND SHOULD NEVER BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN. ESPECIALLY SLICK WILLIE AND ALL OF HIS INTERNS (DUMB AND DUMBER GIRLS) SO IT CAN TARNISH THE OVAL OFFICE "AGAIN".
SO, WITH THAT IT SHOULD BE APPARENT THAT THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT ENTER THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN AND "LOOT IT" THE WAY THEY DID WHEN THEY LEFT.

Posted by J.MULRYAN,SR. | January 23, 2008 6:55 PM