RALEIGH — The nine candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination met Tuesday night for the second debate in as many weeks. The event was co-sponsored by Fox News Channel and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute — a pairing that arguably represented a more interesting news story than anything said by the candidates over the course of 94 minutes.
The theme of the event was the horrendous presidency of George W. Bush. I guess I should say “of course,” but this is actually a bit surprising. Sure, any Democrat trying to galvanize the Democratic base to join his or her campaign has got to go after the standard-bearer of the other party. In this case, there’s an extra animus against the president that derives from the Florida recount imbroglio, the tax cuts, the anti-war surge on the Democratic Left, and the feverish hand-wringing over that demonic John Ashcroft and his fascistic Patriot Act.
What’s surprising, though, is how little the candidates chose to go after each other. After all, they’re not running against George W. Bush — not yet. They are running against fellow Democrats. Other than some criticism by Joe Lieberman of Howard Dean’s seeming tilt to the Palestinian side of the Middle East divide and some blather from Dennis Kucinich about how real Democrats should be in favor of cutting and running in Iraq instead of trying to triumph there, I didn’t hear much in the way of disagreement. That can’t be good for all the candidates. Some, like Dean, are enjoying momentum and have the luxury of focusing on Bush. But others, like John Kerry, needed to score some points. They didn’t.
Here are some brief reactions to the performances, going from left to right on the stage (if I remember correctly):
* Carol Moesley Braun. Actually a very polished and personable speaker, Braun has no reason to be in the race other than arguing that it’s time for a woman to be president. We’ll elect a woman as president, perhaps soon, but if not that’s her main selling point.
* Al Sharpton. By far the best performance of the evening, Sharpton’s answers were on-point, funny, well crafted for the audience, and often substantive (if you can stomach the ideology). I also liked his grown-up treatment of the Lyndon LaRouche kooks in the audience.
* John Edwards. Our soon-to-be-ex-senator Edwards needed to be much more aggressive than he was against the candidates that stand in his way in early states, such as Lieberman and Gephardt. He remains one of the two candidates (Gephardt is the other) who I think effectively combines red meat for the liberals and an attractive pitch to non-ideological swing voters.
* John Kerry. He was flat and ineffective. A couple of good quips came out of his mouth, but clumsily. He didn’t go after Dean like he should have. And his closing statement was horrible. Unless the candidate’s direction changes, he’s a goner.
* Joe Lieberman. By contrast to Kerry, Lieberman had clearly decided to come out of his senatorial shell in Baltimore. Having little to lose at this point, he took on the anti-war liberals on the stage and in the audience. He still doesn’t look or sound like a president to me, but he is a serious man who unfortunately seems to have no real constituency in his own party anymore.
* Howard Dean. His was a safe, thus bland, performance. Dean’s moment has come, but it sort of looks like it may be gone before long. In earlier debates he was confrontational and had good laugh lines. In this one he looked vaguely uncomfortable and cautious. No way could the candidate I saw tonight beat Bush or anyone else.
* Dennis Kucinich. Give the man points for consistency and for a fairly effective presentation to a receptive audience. So, let’s see, that takes his score from zero to just above zero.
* Bob Graham. He’s the slightly added uncle that you let go on and on but try not to actually listen to. Al Sharpton took on the LaRouche hecklers directly, and properly. Graham just stopped his closing statement for a few moments while they ranted, saying nothing, as if he didn’t know what to do. Enough said.
* Dick Gephardt. I think the former House minority leader actually had the best night of the major candidates. His political experience shows, and it helps him. He can boil his message down to a few themes and still sound informed about the details. If Gephardt could update his 1980s message to the political realities of today and raise a little more money, he could get back in the race.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this isn’t even close to being over. The political environment is fluid, there is no clear frontrunner, and many outcomes remain possible.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.