Josh Marshall is pretty brilliant at figuring out what happened; so his "Observations about the Democratic Debate"" are probably valid. I definitely agree with Marshall on what was the crux of the debate.
But I was disappointed in John Edwards. It will never be the size of his house or what he paid for a haircut that will make be doubt the sincerity of his impassioned populism. His comments in the discussion on health care between Clinton and Obama did. After Clinton correctly criticized some flaws in Obama's plan about mandates, she essentially asked Edwards to back her up on the issue. Although Edwards has repeatedly taken the same position as hers, and knew that Obama's description of his position was disingenuous, he did not cover her back. Instead he used the opportunity to attack Clinton (pages 8-13).
A clever and tricky bit of strategy perhaps, but not inspiring in its honesty.
(memeorandum)
P.S. Is anybody else getting sick and tired of the phrase: the "Clinton Machine" - Is Obama riding a tricycle? He's built an impressive machine, and should be proud of it. As discussed above, John Edwards' does not handle a Segway well.
Thank you, Mr. Bustard, for noting this little flap on health care. It echoed a similar disingenuous one in the Republican debate, where Mitt Romney would not own up to the penalties built into Massachusetts's health coverage mandate. To be fully fair, you might also note a fundamental disingenuousness in Hillary's own health plan, which embraces the Massachusetts model and somehow pretends that you can achieve universality without a substantial additional expenditure of public money.
I share your love of the democratic field, finding myself uncharacteristically undecided still among the big three. (I've gotten too old to throw my vote to the truly principled Kucinich when the choice among the 3 is so important and the vegan DK refuses to eat any of the animals I work so hard to raise). But I must confess, part of the reason for my indecision is my looming sense that each of the big three has some big negatives. Edwards's rhetorical dedication to the poor and powerless is invigorating, but I mistrust his trial lawyer pseudo-sincerity and manipulation of the facts, and don't see a particularly principled record reflecting that rhetoric from when he was a pretty centrist Senator. I love that Hillary has balls and is so smart (she, like Bill, seems always able to see the micro in the context of the macro) but remember all the triangulation, some of it baldly unprincipled and harmful, of the Clinton years and see her as perfectly capable of repeats. And the truly principled public life Obama has led is fading for me when viewed beside his new soaring rhetoric. He is appearing increasingly packaged, cautious, and caught up in being the next beloved JFK, and he now seems to be avoiding substance altogether. Will he be so intent on being the uniter and a pathbreaker to a new politics that he sells out the principles? I want his election to be a means, but right now he is giving me the impression it is the end.
The weekend NH debate made me respect Clinton more and Obama and Edwards somewhat less -- my internal polling went from Barack holding an edge to neck and neck Clinton and Obama. And I regretted that none of these three divas could ever be a team with either of the others, so that we combine their strengths and counterbalance their weaknesses. The comfort is how much better any of them would be than what we have now.
Posted by: farmer mark | January 07, 2008 at 06:56 PM
Very, very smart Mr Farmer - last night Andrew Sullivan was arguing that the inauguration of Obama was sufficient to change the world. God Help Us!
Posted by: bbbustard | January 08, 2008 at 05:27 PM