Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DEBATE BLOGGING: EDWARDS AGAINST HIMSELF.
In the debate over health care mandates, rather than argue for his plan, or against Obama's, Edwards went after Hillary as a force "of the status quo" fighting those trying to bring about change. It backfired. Clinton had looked a little tired accusing Obama of flip-flopping, but Edwards riled her up enough to elicit a furious recitation of the change Hillary had actually fought for: S-CHIP and National Guard benefits and on and on. It was quite impressive, and impassioned in a way Hillary rarely is.
Thus far, Edwards has been a bit odd in the debate. Hillary and Obama have talked a lot of policy, engaging in a substantive back-and-forth on health mandates. Edwards entered to argue in Obama's defense, but not on the substantive issue of mandates, as he agrees with Hillary, but in the theoretical realm of change. But in the context of mandates, what sense does Edwards' reply make? He's undercutting his own vision of the sort of change we need. Maybe he's decided to help push Obama past Hillary in this debate, but a rhetorician as talented as Edwards could do that without contradicting his own position on the issues. And the substantive, policy-focused passion Edwards exhibited earlier today was totally absent in these questions. It's early in the debate, of course, but health care is Edwards' strongest issue, the place where he was the furthest in front of the field, and he totally whiffed the opportunity to emphasize that leadership.
COMMENTS (14)
Okay, and then a split second later she blasted a hole in her own foot by saying you shouldn't build up Americans on false hopes about change you can't accomplish.
If there was any moment in this debate that sounded more pathetic than Charlie Gibson suggesting a 30% chance of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next Presidency, it was that.
I want to see that on the campaign trail.
Let's aim for not too much change! America, don't get your hopes up too much! I, Hillary Clinton, won't promise you more change than I think you can handle, which is less than Obama & Edwards think you can!!!
Posted by: El Cid | January 5, 2008 9:52 PM
Really? I thought Hillary's answer about judging her on the change she had accomplished on health care rang incredibly hollow -- Hillarycare anyone? If you judge her on what she's accomplished, isn't the judgment largely negative? I read Edwards' restraint as merely allowing Hillary to dig her own hole.
Posted by: Wandering About | January 5, 2008 10:01 PM
I'm tired of her taking credit for S-CHIP. That was Ted Kennedy's baby all the way, and he actually had to browbeat Clinton into fighting for it when he was about to capitulate to the Republicans. Hillary had very little to do with it.
Posted by: Yossarian | January 5, 2008 10:05 PM
By the way, I'm reminded to mention that I really, really like Hillary Clinton. I really like her, I do. I hate having to disagree with her when I do. So as I'm watching this debate it's just so, so frustrating that I can't support her like I could if her views & policies were different. This is completely not personal for me.
But if she keeps claiming that she's been 'fighting for change for 35 years,' I may have to take a barf break.
Posted by: El Cid | January 5, 2008 10:32 PM
Clinton kicked ass!
Posted by: JoeCHI | January 5, 2008 10:53 PM
Hillary took the bait and imploded. It wasn't what she said, but how she said it. She lost her cool and lost the nomination. It was her Howard Dean shout moment.
Posted by: AJL | January 5, 2008 11:05 PM
Ezra, this post made you sound fairly naive, I hate to say.
In at least two polls today, Edwards is close to the margin of error behind Clinton, closer to her than she is to Obama. He has the chance to effectively eliminate her from the race.
of COURSE he is going after her.
Posted by: drfranklives | January 5, 2008 11:07 PM
JoeCHI: Clinton kicked ass!
s/b
Clinton kicked ass the hope out of me
Senator Clinton: We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered
Posted by: hlah | January 5, 2008 11:09 PM
Ezra,
Maybe Edwards recognizes that the mandate issue is a policy dispute that pales in comparison with the struggle against the status quo he shares with Barack Obama.
Nothing inconsistent about that.
Gotta set priorities and pick your battles.
Posted by: Jeff | January 5, 2008 11:16 PM
Whatever.
Et Tu Ezra? Are you going to publicly play the game of "who won?", "Who lost?" when you should really be asking, "who cares?"
What's important is who we should vote for and who we should advocate for not who accidentally passed gas in a public debate and therefore scared off the important, "I don't know anything about policy! But I hate people who accidentally pass gas in public!" demographic.
Compared to the others Edwards was great but even if he managed magically to queef his way through the debate tonight while the others are smelled from rose petals and sang like angels he's STILL the candidate to die and kill for. Who the hell cares if he misspeaks a sentence here and there? Why should we even be talking about such nonsense?
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
Posted by: mnuez | January 5, 2008 11:54 PM
Edwards is getting a little irrelevant, as he simply takes votes away from Obama. He & Richardson should begin to either choose whom they would be VP under & bow out, or at least stop playing spoiler.
Obama is Edwards minus the bad vibes & hypocrisy.
Posted by: daveinboca | January 6, 2008 1:20 AM
If you're an Obama supporter and you can't see the utility of having Edwards in the race, I don't know what to tell you. He clearly isn't running to be President anymore, and you should think about that.
Lets put it this way, there's a reason Edwards won conservative Democrats in Iowa despite the fact that he's the most liberal candidate. There will come a time when you'll be glad those votes were siphoned from Clinton.
Posted by: Soullite | January 6, 2008 2:30 AM
Of course drfranklives is right ... Iowa clearly established who the "anti-Hillary" candidate is, so Edwards' only play is to become the "anybody-but Obama" candidate. A very slim chance, but the only one he has. Plus, it has the added bonus of allowing him to go after Hillary, who he clearly is not fond of.
Posted by: westcoast wizard | January 6, 2008 2:50 AM
Once again, allowing the results of Iowa or current National polls to swing any one of those 4 Democrats into quitting the race is doing a disservice to every other Democrat primary voter in the country. What a shame, really. And lets not forgot that national polls are useless in an electoral system like we have!!!
Posted by: Adrock | January 7, 2008 9:15 AM