This debate was troublesome to watch. Senator Clinton's negative and somewhat distorting attacks on Obama left Obama having to defend himself, and because of this, Edwards was able to take the high road in the debate, even though he was the most negative candidate in the race up until a few months ago. If there's anyone that can be responsible for Obama's demise, and perhaps Edwards' comeback, it is Clinton herself.
First off, all three candidates are good. Second, although this diary may be seen as a hit piece, please don't look at it that way. I try to be fair throughout, and although I support Obama's candidacy, he is by no means perfect, and I join those who criticize some of his panderings. That said, I think the people advising Senator Clinton are inside-the-beltway attack dogs who would stop at nothing to demonize the opposition. It saddens me, because Hillary Clinton is a top-notch candidate with enormous skills and qualifications for the presidency.
Clinton starts off the attack by saying Obama liked key ideas of the Republicans (a flat out falsehood). Then she rants further and says he stopped opposing the war, which was not what he said. The audience applauds Clinton.
So what is Obama supposed to do, say "I just want to conduct a positive campaign" and thus leave the criticisms leveled on him aside? NO! He defends himself, rightfully, and in order to put credibility to his positions and experiences, he draws a strong contrast, showing that Obama was working in the streets fighting for change while she was on Walmart's corporate board (now now, in all fairness, this was somewhat coy on Obama's part, given that he didn't put a value to that experience, but merely pointed it out, knowing that audiences equate Walmart with the enemy). He had to do so through a rude and interrupting Senator Clinton. After the whithering attack he sustained, he had every right to speak the truth.
Then what does Senator Clinton do? She goes lower! She says he worked for a slum landlord business. This is mere reductionist desperate tactics, and completely irrelevant to a presidential campaign. Anyone who falls for this stuff does not pay attention to the real issues of the day, which Edwards did point out. Thankfully, Obama sets the record straight, pointing out he did some work for 5 hours for someone that had to do with this (shining light on the irrelevance of the issue).
What I find most problematic about this whole exchange is that Senator Edwards, whose campaign from the very beginning (Until the late fall) has been about attacking the others, especially Clinton. Then he decides to change paths and say "I'm the only positive one here." It really angers me, because Obama has been consistent from day one of the campaign, and he has rarely initiated an attack on someone else (except for maybe one notoriously anti-Hillary fest, back when she was the commanding front-runner). I would have liked if Edwards made this clear that Clinton initiated the attacks.
So what does this mean? Edwards is going to perform much better in South Carolina, and be back to viable. Edwards has every right to be a viable candidate, he outperformed Senator Clinton in Iowa, and has been a strong voice for the poor. But this was not the way it should have happened.
I really hope Senator Clinton stops with the attack initiations. It really makes me annoyed when commentators say "There they go again" when what they really should be saying is "There Senator Clinton goes again." But what troubles me the most is, it seems as if it's Terry McAuliffe's work. Clinton is at her best when she is alone. If she wins the nomination, that's the Clinton I want running for president.
But my hope is for Obama, the candidate of change.