Snipers and Thinkers

The Democratic presidential candidates gathered tonight in Las Vegas for another debate with memories of the year's most contentious debate last month in Philadelphia still fresh in many minds. Although Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have been the media and poll darlings for most of the year, open warfare between the three has erupted only relatively recently. Personally, I've found this trio's squabbles rather grating and tiresome in large part because there seems to be so little that is genuine about any of it. Obama and Edwards are attacking Clinton because she is ahead in the polls; Clinton is counterattacking Obama and Edwards because they threaten to eat into her lead. The genuinely angry man in this race, Mike Gravel, hasn't even been invited to the last couple of Democratic debate; the pale flames of Obama and Edwards' indignation would easily be engulfed by the roaring fire of Gravel's frustrated populism. Much of what we see from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards is strategic sniping. The issue of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a good example of this. Hillary Clinton's reluctance to give a value judgment on this issue garnered public criticism from Obama, yet Obama also seemed rather uncomfortable addressing the very same issue in tonight's debate! True, Obama gave a direct answer -- he supports the idea -- but he seemed as frightened to be seen as taking a strong stand on this issue as Hillary Clinton was. To me, this trivialized the whole controversy over Hillary's previous vacillating; the whole thing was an excuse to attack Hillary, not so much about the issue itself which is clearly a difficult one for both candidates. On the other hand, Bill Richardson was able to answer the question unequivocally and thoroughly. In fact, the early Hillary/Barack/John sniping in this debate probably did more to make Bill Richardson and Joe Biden look good than it did to help any of the disputants. By staying out of the fray and sounding disapproving of the political games taking part on the stage, Biden and Richardson played the roles of wise statesmen. Unluckily for them, the debate grew less negative as it continued on, and each member of the main trio had a few good moments. Hillary Clinton, in particular, seemed much more confident and comfortable even when under fire in this debate, a much-needed performance following her weak showing in Philadelphia.

I thought it was Bill Richardson who sparked the most interesting discussion of the night by suggesting that human rights could be more important than security. That was a brave statement to make in this day and age; there was no one on stage Giuliani enough to ask Bill Richardson if he remembered 9/11, but I suspect that millions of people watching the debate were wondering just that. On a certain level, I do tend to agree more with Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton on this issue; protecting the country is one of the fundamental roles of government, certainly more fundamental than promoting human rights overseas (the issue of human rights vs security was raised in the context of American foreign policy towards Pakistan). It is a question of circumstance, however...sometimes, human rights should trump security, or else fear will trample the rights of American citizens and encourage the trampling of rights elsewhere also. At any rate, I love to listen to Richardson's optimistic foreign policy outlook; he is certainly not a fearmonger. On the domestic side of things, he does seem to fall into the trap of promising money to fund any and everything; a Richardson administration will eagerly embark on an ambitious renewable energy program, increase salaries for teachers, increase pay and benefits for the military, and win over Pakistan's middle class with economic aid. Idealism and optimism is a healing medicine for a debate watcher grown weary of petty bickering and immovable thinking, but I do wonder if Richardson's idealism would trump pragmatism just like human rights trump security!