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."
This post first appeared at The Nation.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"PLEASE DON'T DROP OUT PLEASE. JOHN EDWARDS IS THE ONLY HOPE TO GET US OUT OF THE MESS BUSH HAS GOTTEN US INTO AND HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!!!" __aznurse.
Well, Aznurse, Mr. Edwards ability to remain the the race depends on you any everybody who feels the same as you. He really hasn't sold out to corporate money. His federal matching funds could not allow him to do ads in Nevada.
I do wonder how Ron Paul supporters will pour 25 and 50 dollar donations that amount to 6 million overnight, but Edwards supporters fail to rally in kind.
Go to Edwards's website. Donate a five, a ten, or whatever you can spare. If enough people like you do this tonight and tomorrow, you'll change the face of this whole presidential race.
However, Edward's campaign is still in trouble. Corporate Media squelched his message in the beginning, depriving his campaign of buzz. And now MSM is pushing the idea that he's being rejected because OF his message. It is b.s. Getting parity in broadcast media is of paramount importance.
It is a real shame that the corporate media and especially the television network producers are trying to frame to the American people who we should be electing as President.
Trying to increase their ratings by hyping the first female candidate against the first African American candidate as opposed to allowing candidates with substance who can guide and be a vehicle for progressive change.
There is no question that John Edwards is the best candidate for America in 2008, unfortunately as the corporate media deprive the American public by not giving his voice a platform the sad result is the dumbing of the American voter. It is a true Lose - Lose for America.
Edwards was only being opportunistic. He was desperate and he resorted to "look at these two quarreling, I am the only adult here". I was not impressed with him in the least. Well, lets revise that, I was more impressed with him than I was the calculating Hillary/Billary.
Here's the deal:
Obama won on points, standing his ground firmly (even while double-teamed); tough, but still possessed of eloquence and the ability to bring it back to the middle. And he kicked some major tail on policy points - particularly health care, and - bad news for the Clinton team - national defense - previously a strong issue for her campaign. (She set that up by implying [accidentally, I believe] that the Republicans would, via McCain control the agenda in November - a huge tactical error, which left a big opening for Obama, one that he exploited subtly, even obliquely [a wise choice])
And the majority of undecideds polled - while saying their native son hearts were with Edwards, said they'd be voting for Obama . . .
And here it is, finally, as the point has sunk in for America, OBAMA IS THE MOST ELECTABLE IN NOVEMBER. Very perspicacious on the their part, and a turning point that will be remembered for the remainder of the campaign. Credit Obama's team for repeating the real numbers re his full spectrum of support (Democrats, Independents and, yes, even Republicans). Brilliantly, he turned the Reagan attack around to articulate the necessity of crossover support re a mandate to govern. Great chess, baby!
Sadly, Edwards is a tad marginalized, but he certainly took a close second.
And, even as an Obama supporter, I liked the toe-to-toe. We've got to stop expecting Barack and Hillary to do a pax de deux. Indeed, this is great prep for November.
And, lest I set aside balance, Hillary was strong and I actually liked her tonight. My wife and I both decided to tow the party line regardless of the nominee.
The biggest point of the night, though - Barack finally convinced America that he can reach out to every demographic and political affiliation, winning a mandate for change with majorities in both houses this November.
The Democratic Party now can honestly say that we've the best field of candidates in recent memory.
LOVED THE DEBATE!
Excellent post. Voters who want real solutions to our country's problems should look at the specific plans Edwards proposed long before Hillary and Obama. The media has deliberately publicized this election as a two way race between Hillary and Obama, but it is Edwards who has the ideas, the honesty and the drive to bring about real change. Democrats need to realize this ASAP.
And did John Edwards say, in a not so round about way, that he is the one who can win in a GE because he is a white male?
I do think he did very well in the debate but the part about his electability rubbed me the wrong way.
pardon me for being so verbose. i vent online. the upside? my wife smiles alot more often.
on cnn bill schnieder reported that edwards statement that he polled better against mccain was not entirely accurate. said bill, "it's true that edwards polled better than clinton or obama but that was in our october poll. clinton and obama polled about equal with mccain in our most recent poll while edwards was not compared."
my point is, here is another example of the media selectively applying their will to influence the election. WHY was edwards not compared in the most recent poll? with only a few delegates allotted in the primaries so far, edwards is still right in the mix. i guess not according to cnn who commissioned the poll. the public deserves the entire story and cnn is failing their journalistic responsibilities. i would think the pundits humiliation after the new hampshire debacle would keep them from making exclusionary moves based on polling.
Mr. Melber you called it just right! I thought Edwards shone tonight and looked like the grownup in the trio. Hillary and Obama looked like squabbling 3rd graders: "Did SO!" "Did NOT!", etc.
John Edwards DESERVES another look, people. Please don't write this candidate off! His ideas are the foundation of most of the policy ideas in the race on BOTH sides of the aisle. If you doubt my words, listen next time to how often Obama, Clinton, Huckabee and even Romney borrow phrases, plans, rhetoric and ideas from John Edwards. You will be shocked.
I wouldn't characterize the debate as "ferocious"; there were some sharp elbows, though. Good. I believe that there are some things about the candidates that we need to know. Playing safe and touchy-feely all the time will not raise the questions that we must find answers to. Including the 130 "present" votes.
I watched the debate and if I had to choose between these three candidates, I would choose John Edwards. I don't have to choose between these three! Someone was missing tonght. Where is Dennis? ? Insurance companies prosper, when they can pick and choose, who they insure.If you are likely to have a claim, they would rather insure someone else. The only reason that we now have Medicare, is because the private insurance companies refused to cover people over a certain age (65). If they cannot profit by insuring you, they don't want you. What kind of a society denies medical care to children? Let's not lose track of the fact, that the children of the wealthy will be taken care of with or without insurance, and so like so many other issues, the poor are once again the target. The President of the United States is opposed to children getting medical treatment. He was not saying no to all children, only those who need it. As long as these Insurance companies are involved they will continue to rob us. Some people think that each of the Democratic candidates have a health care plan. They do, but they all protect the Insurance Companies, and keep them involved, except, of course Anti-War Candidate, Dennis Kucinich..
I was proud of John Edwards tonight. I was more dismayed with Hillary than ever after she continues to play the Rovian game of misinformation, false accusations, and throwing dirt willy-nilly. She'll do and say anything to win - isn't that obvious? Does this matter to anybody? Can this woman be trusted? I think not.
John Edwards rose above the fray tonight to stay on point. He comes across as fair and earnest. He is smart, committed, and combative when he needs to be. By far, Edwards is the best candidate we can field against the Republicans.
Wow! I just watched this clip, along with one that showed our two rock star candidate ripping into each other. Why is Edwards losing again? Have I missed something that the very, very small number of voters, who have a ridiculously disproportionate influence on the nomination process have seen? Edwards should be doing a lot better! Help me here people!
I wouldn't say Edwards exceled. He's always been a substantial candidate- he's just not getting significant enough support in the primaries to be a likely presidential candidate. I'd feel hopeful about Edwards chances if he was running in the general election for President- but the reality is it's not likely that that's going to happen.
Edwards is in some ways in an easier position in these debates, because Obama and Clinton are neck and neck for first and no one's going to spend much time attacking Edwards cause it's probable he's not going to be campaigning a few weeks from now. Bill Clinton barely mentions Edwards when he does his attack dog thing.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
