Reply #14: Here is what I saw [View All]

Two politicians with their own personal vested interests in advancing to the finals identified with a slogan and sought to unidentify an opponent from that same slogan. Change has always been an Obama buzz word. He does represent change of course by being an African American, and as Hillary pointed out she represents change by being a woman. But her point was that representing change does not bring about change, effective work brings about change. Richardson focused on the real value of experience in getting things done. Obama in turn pointed out the power of words in moving people etc. There is much to discuss on the topic of how does change happen and more than one way to look at it. Much of the debate revolved around that and it was fascinating, and acutally a useful discussion to have. But your post glosses right over all of it. Two politicians try to patent a positive buzz word in a double team against a common opponent and you think that was a defining moment in American political history? That is sad.

Edwards for his part was just reading the polls. He needs to do some immediate political historical revisionism. He finished less than half a percentage point ahead of Clinton in Iowa, with both of them being 8 points behind Obama. So he is strapping himself to Obama's "change" image so he can claim that it was he and Obama who "won" Iowa rather than he and Clinton who "lost" there. "I'm about change too! Change, that's me, just like Obama!" was his ploy. In fact most everything else he went on to say about how to bring about change was diametrically opposite to what Obama had to say.

Obama stressed building a working majority coalition to bring about change by finding common ground with non Democrats; Independents and some Republicans. Obama blurred Party lines in an appeal to all Americans. Edwards took a very strong economic populist position against the types of compromises that in fact usually build those types of working coalitions. There are reasons why Independents choose not to be Democrats in the first place, and for many of them it includes a rejection of that type of sharp edged populist world view.

Obama and Edwards conceptionally "teamed up" in name only; that name being the high polling buzz word "change". The actual debate discussion was real; the use of slogans wasn't. All of the Democrats up there are working for Change. Politically they teamed up to try to weaken a serious rival. Some no doubt will be swayed by that combination punch thrown against Hillary, but it can push different viewers in different directions. "Ganging up" has a negative connotation. If it comes off that way to some it will help Clinton with those people to see her stand up against two men coming at her in that way.

I think what people walk away from that debate having heard will vary from person to person depending on their own personal buttons and what they instinctively respond best to. When I tried to view it objectively I think all four of them were effective in making a strong cse for their candidacy and each made powerful points along their respective lines.