Democratic Debate in Las Vegas

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards pulled back from their recent mutually destructive tendencies in their debate tonight in Las Vegas. The result was a return to the dynamics of their earlier debates, with Obama stressing vision and inclusiveness, Clinton policy knowledge and experience and Edwards his identification with and willingness to fight for regular Americans against special interests. At the outset the moderators attempted to stoke the racially charged exchanges that had dominated the headlines until lately, but the candidates weren't biting. This is good news for the party's prospects in November, since fratricide over ethnicity among them could do nothing but benefit the Republicans in the general election.

Clinton acted as if she were already president. She directed her fire at the shortcomings of the Bush Administration and spoke in detail about policy initiatives crafted to rectify his mistakes. Her demeanor and bearing were pretty impressive. One of her most effective moments was inviting Obama to cosponsor her Senate resolution demanding that any agreement President Bush signs with Iraq be submitted to the Senate for ratification as the Constitution requires for treaties with foreign nations. Obama could do little but accept. Clinton sought to portray herself as the experienced leader who was ready to take charge. She largely succeeded.

Obama acted presidential too. He returned to his theme of offering a new approach to getting things done in government by appealing to independents and people tired of business as usual. But his mien was not harshly critical or overtly directed at Clinton, and he was the best at getting some laughs from the audience. It's clear that he and Clinton had decided to make nice with each other. Obama touched on policy details to a greater extent than in some previous debates and emerged as someone responsible and thoughtful enough to be trusted in office.

Edwards remained true to his populist position, trying to link the others to contributions from special interests. Unlike the New Hampshire debate in which he went strongly after Clinton, Edwards sought this time to draw policy distinctions with both opponents. He highlighted a number of these, but in as polite a manner as possible. He wanted to show he has the heart to stand with the common citizen. There is little doubt about his commitment, but he needs more to reestablish his appeal beyond its reach to his shrinking number of current supporters.

The net effect of the debate was to narrow the ideological disputes between the three. For the most part they all are in broad agreement on what is wrong with the country and the measures needed to fix things. Clinton did herself the most good in this exchange. The debate was muted and stuck to the issues. This played to her advantage. Obama came across as credible and will continue to be a force to be reckoned with. Edwards probably did not distinguish himself as much as he needed to to get back on par with the others. Without a breakthrough soon in the campaign he may well fade as a factor while Clinton and Obama square off to determine the Democratic standard bearer for 2008.