Diamonds or Pearls

As it's actually getting somewhat close to the primary season, and since I now actually own a TV, I've started watching the Democratic debates. Last night's was pretty good, except for the last question. On the issues, most of the candidates were in agreement; some sort of universal health care, a measured but immediate Iraq withdrawal, and no comment about drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. But this was really my first chance to see all the candidates in the same room together, so here were my initial impressions:

1. John Edwards is more hokey than I remembered, by a long shot. His Southern accent seems to have gotten much thicker since 2004, to the extent that he now seems to talk out of only one side of his mouth. In 2004 his only real distinction was his Southern-ness, and that doesn't seem to have changed. And he can't go two sentences without mentioning "the neocons," which frankly sounds a bit like a Republican who can't go two sentences without saying "the liberals" (and yes, I know those Republicans have won elections in the past, but I wish they hadn't). I'm just not buying it. Bill Clinton he ain't.

2. When asked if they'd support the Democratic nominee, all the candidates except Kucinich said yes without reservation. Kucinich said he'd only support a nominee who opposes war. Since DK has criticized all of the other candidates' Iraq withdrawal plans as being too pro-war, does this mean he's planning a Nader-style independent run?

3. As usual, there's almost nothing I can say about Hillary's performance. Solid. Predictable. A little wooden. She comes off as John Kerry without the gaffes or the military-hero showboating.

4. Bill Richardson actually beats Hillary in the "seems competent, knowledgeable, and reasonable" category. He'd be a great veep, except I'm not sure if he could take out a vicious snarling Republican in a debate, which is probably the Democratic vice presidential candidate's most important job.

5. Obama is starting to annoy me with this "attack Hillary for being a moderate and a waffler, and then be moderate and waffle" thing. If you look at their actual policy positions, Obama is very slightly more liberal on foreign policy, very slightly more conservative on domestic policy, and just as likely to straddle the fence on difficult issues as is Hillary. But somehow a lot of bloggers seem to think that Obama is positioned to attack Clinton from a liberal, principled position. I just don't think he's staked out the principled/liberal ground solidly enough to make the attack convincing. Hence the negative reaction from pundits when he refused to give a definitive answer the the licenses-for-illegals question that he previously attacked Hillary for refusing to answer definitively. Barack, if you're going to be the liberal in this race, be the liberal. But if you're going to be Hillary+charisma, don't go on the attack.

I'm basically happy with all the candidates at this point on policy issues. It all comes down to personality, electability, and style. On that measure, it seems to me that Obama is the only one who can beat Hillary, but he can only do it by articulating a bold new overarching vision about our country's future. Vision always trumps laundry lists of policies. It's what made Bill Clinton great. And I'm sure Obama is savvy enough to come up with such a vision, and charismatic enough to make us see it. But so far he has not. And if he doesn't, Hillary is the default choice.