Dems Debate: No Shoot-out in Texas, as Clinton Halfheartedly Goes After Obama

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


obama-clinton250x200.jpg Asked if Barrack Obama was ready to be commander in chief, Hillary Clinton ducked the question. When Obama suggested she is not as willing as he is to confront the special interests of Washington, she did not engage. Offered the chance to blast Obama for vowing to meet with the dictatorial leaders of North Korea and Iran in his first year as president, she took a pass. When Clinton did go on the attack at Thursday night’s debate in Austin, Texas, she chose to focus on Obama’s use of several speech lines borrowed (or plagiarized, according to the Clinton camp) from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a supporter of Obama. That was, she said, “not change you can believe in; it’s change you can Xerox.”

With the zinger, Clinton was trying to reinforce one of her campaign’s themes: I offer solutions; he offers words. But during this portion of the debate, Obama came on strong. He brushed aside the plagiarism accusation as part of the “silly season in politics,” and noted that the fine words of his eloquent speeches convey not only hope and inspiration but also support proposals for tuition tax credits for college, tax relief for working families, and military disengagement in Iraq. And Obama explained that inspiration is essential because “if we can’t inspire the American people to get involved in their government,” Washington will continue to be a city of gridlock dominated by corporate lobbyists. Clinton didn’t have much of a reply to that. She did continue stick to her my-actions-speak-louder-than-his-words assault. But there was no new punch to this now routine line, and she appeared to gain no new ground in the battle between (his) hope and (her) experience.

Which means the debate was no game changer. Obama, who has not been his best at debates earlier in the campaign, performed well in Austin before a pumped-up crowd that cheered on both candidates. (Kudos to CNN for not shushing the candidates’ supporters.) Clinton performed well, too, especially when it came to demonstrating her command of policy details and ticking off her legislative accomplishments. But at this point, she needs to do better than well and clobber Obama, and that did not happen. A recent poll in Texas–which holds its primary on March 4–shows the race between the two a statistical dead heat. That is, Obama, if the polls are to be believed, is catching her in the crucial state. And polls in Ohio–the other big prize on March 4–show Obama nipping at a still-significant Clinton lead. But there’s still plenty of time for him to close in on her in the Buckeye State.

During the debate, there was–as in earlier encounters–far more agreement than dispute. Obama and Clinton echoed–or seconded–each other on immigration, Cuba policy, repealing George Bush’s tax cuts, adding tougher labor, safety, and environmental standards to trade deals, promoting green jobs, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. And like an old married couple, they once again bickered about their health care plans. She claimed that without a mandate forcing people to obtain health insurance, his plan would not provide universal coverage. He denied that, pointing out problems Massachusetts has had with its recent imposition of a health insurance mandate. Clinton has been arguing this same case against Obama for weeks, to no effect. And his retort this evening was sharper and better formulated than his previous responses.

It was generally one repeat after another. Clinton reiterated her campaign’s mantra: she’s ready to lead on Day One. He countered: of the two, he displayed better judgment in opposing the Iraq war. No voter who has paid any attention to the race heard much that was new. But, then, neither candidate has much that is new to say. Obama, riding a streak of wins, has no need to change his message and stock lines. And Clinton has been using all the ammo she possesses. She cites her experience, shows her smarts, throws in a dose of Democratic populism, and belittles Obama’s speechifying. In recent weeks, none of that has worked for her. But what else is there? She could turn up the volume of her attacks on him. But clearly she and her campaign chiefs had decided against appearing desperate. It didn’t even look as if her heart was in it when she poked Obama with the clever quip about Xeroxing change. A viewer could wonder if she was tired of the fight.

The debate was no showdown. There were even moments of grace and warmth, when each spoke kindly of the other–and a nice handshake occurred toward the end. At that point, both candidates came across as decent people who recognized that the campaign has forced them to be harsher than they would prefer. And in this moment, Clinton also seemed to be acknowledging that she could not attack Obama much more than she already has. Maybe she was merely fatigued. But when Clinton was asked to respond to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement that it would be a problem if superdelegates were to overturn the outcome of the primaries and the caucuses, she declined to support Pelosi’s view, noting that the rules are the rules. This was an indication that the Clinton camp has not given up considering a win-with-the-superdelegates strategy (as improbable as that might be) and a reminder that the contest could become rather ugly later on. But before any such thing can happen, Clinton will have to do rather well in Ohio and Texas.

As soon as the face-off was finished, the Clinton campaign issued a statement:

What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next President of the United States. Her strength, her life experience, her compassion. She’s tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.

Clinton supporters ought to hope that her spinners don’t believe their own spin, for that would be a sign they are out of touch with reality. She did not push Obama out of the saddle. She only managed to keep the same position in the horse race she held when she first took the stage.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate