Debate exposes weaknesses of Clinton campaign

Steve Keller Columnist

In 2004, the Democrats ruined what was seen by many as a cakewalk to the White House. After a disastrous four years of Republican rule, the Democrats had hoped to reclaim the presidency under the leadership of Senator John Kerry. Well, as we all know, they didn’t. Why not? Many experts agree that this was because of the Democrats’ inability to craft a coherent message, as well as the fact that they nominated someone who was perceived as part of the extremely unpopular Washington establishment.

If you look at who is currently leading the polls on the Democratic nomination side, you may wonder whether this is not 2004 all over again. Senator Hillary Clinton, the media-crowned presumed nominee, suffers from the same two fatal flaws that killed John Kerry’s candidacy: indecisiveness on important issues and strong connections to the political establishment. But if you have been following the presidential race over the past few months, these two fatal flaws in Clinton’s character are not so apparent. In fact, you might not even be aware that there are other candidates still in the running.

On Tuesday, Clinton’s aura of invincibility cracked. In the span of two hours, she fell from being the expected nominee to being an actual participant in a competitive primary. The other candidates, namely John Edwards and Barack Obama, decided to put Clinton to task in the debate.

Edwards opened the eighth Democratic presidential debate with an aggressive diatribe against Clinton, a stark contrast to the cordial “coffee-talk” mood of previous debates. When asked by moderator Tim Russert if he stood by his statements that Clinton is engaging in flip-flopping, Edwards said, “I do.” Edwards focused on Clinton’s mixed messages regarding Iraq, Iran and Social Security, slamming her on the difference between her “public” and “private” position.

Edwards’ accusation was proven by the end of the night. In the space of five minutes, Clinton said two different things about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. First, she said she supported the Governor, then denounced his plan. When questioned about the contradiction by the other candidates, including Obama, she repeated the “it makes sense” argument before settling on the statement, “Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No.”

Obama seemed the most presidential of the front runners in Tuesday’s debate. He attacked Clinton in a subtle, delicate way. His attacks were not attempts to destroy Clinton on the issues but more about drawing a distinction between his character and the Senator’s. He confronted her on these matters and was successful each time he did so.

The most significant was concerned with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s decision to seal records of their personal conversations during the former President’s time in the White House. Obama took the stand that if Clinton’s experience is the basis of her campaign, she ought to be transparent about the time she spent in government. “Part of what we have to do is invite the American people back to participate in their government,” he said. “What we need to do is rebuild trust.”

Through this and the other exchanges, a viewer should be able to see the clear facts about Clinton’s and Obama’s characters. Obama is the candidate for change in Washington. He wants to establish an administration that will open up the political process to more people. Clinton, by contrast, is satisfied with the status quo.

Obama managed to walk the line between his “politics of hope” theme and actually making a distinction between himself and Clinton, something he has promised to do over the last few months of his campaign. This may help him in the Iowa caucus, which will be held on Jan. 3. Iowans don’t like a candidate who can’t take a stand on issues, but they don’t like overtly negative attacks either. Obama was clear and direct, but he managed to make the character issue more a reflection of his values rather than a criticism of Clinton’s—something John Edwards did not do.

Clinton has certainly hit a bump in the road. But will that bump become a rut? We don’t have long to find out. The next debate is on Nov. 15 on CNN, and it will certainly reveal more about each candidate’s chances in the primaries.

For this viewer, Clinton’s performance in the debate showed that she is most certainly not worth supporting. There was no denying that she was afraid to answer tough questions. The Democrats lost the 2004 election with a candidate who was labeled a flip-flopper. Can this country really afford another four years of Republican rule on account of lack of a consistent message?

Steve Keller ’11 writes a bi-weekly column on national and international political issues and their coverage in the media.