Maybe Vice President Joe Biden was channel surfing during the Democratic presidential debate catching some baseball along with a bored President Obama. But if he tuned into the debate, he observed a cool, confident Hillary Clinton bulldoze a weak field of opponents on the stage in Las Vegas. Though he may have wished to be there too, what he saw isn’t likely to have made a late entry into the race more enticing for him. Biden has been watching and waiting, pushing the envelope on waiting to jump in until almost to the last moment when filing deadlines would make such a presidential run impossible. With Clinton faltering in the polls and on the stump and socialist Bernie Sanders starting to catch up or even pass her in early caucus/primary state polls, the former First Lady looked very beatable. Yet after Clinton demonstrated the sort of polish and aggression that made her the clear winner of the first Democratic debate, a Biden run seems a lot less likely today then it did only a few hours earlier. The combination of Clinton toughness on stage and Bernie Sanders’ generally weak debate performance may not only have deterred Biden. Clinton may have sewed up the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination in one night.
The contrast between Clinton and Sanders could not have been greater. Clinton was smooth and calm while Sanders tended to shout. And she didn’t hesitate to nail him on an issue on the one issue on which the Democratic base disagrees with the Vermont senator: gun control. Sanders’ attempt to explain why senators from rural states have different perspectives on that issue than those from urban areas made sense. If Sanders had to pretend to be at least mildly supportive of gun rights in Vermont, that should be something that Clinton understood. After all, she had to spend eight years pretending to be a supporter of Israel while representing New York. But Clinton pounded Sanders ruthlessly in the first minutes of the debate on the issue and in doing so sent a message not only to her main rival but also to the one waiting in the wings. No mercy will be shown to anyone who crosses the Clintons.
But faced with the chance to ask Clinton about her lies and evasions about her email scandal, Sanders didn’t’ return the favor but instead defended her. That may be what Democrats wanted to hear and was in keeping with his avoidance of personal attacks. But the contrast demonstrated which of the candidates was not only prepared for the debate but also which is ready to fight by any means, fair or foul, to win.
On the issues, Hillary didn’t have an easy time of it. Her defense of flip-flopping sounded as unconvincing as all such rationalizations generally do. She was evasive on foreign policy and, though more in the mainstream than most of her opponents, had a terribly weak answer on Russian adventurism. Like most of those on stage, she seemed to think saying the words “climate change” was a magic formula that could serve to answer any question or to talk her way out of any hole she had dug for herself.
But the contrast between Clinton and her opponents couldn’t have been greater. She was often duplicitous, especially with regard to her record. But she was always the best debater on the stage and mixed in red meat for the Democratic base on economic and social issues while keeping her options open on other topics. That showed she has her eye on the general election more than the primaries. For Democrats who want to win in 2016 — and Democrats seem to be more interested in the bottom line of elections than party purity than a lot of Republicans these days — that’s a key selling point.
Sanders had his moments when he was able to show why so many Democratic true believers like his candor and passion. But it’s doubtful that even most Democrats really want America to be like Scandinavia, as he indicated was his goal. Though Sanders is far more authentic, credible and likable than Clinton, when stacked up against her in person, the notion that he can sustain his momentum seems unlikely. Though he will likely stay in this race for a long time and press Clinton all the way into the spring, the debate may be the moment when the tide starts to turn against him.
As for the others, Martin O’Malley showed why he might have been taking seriously had Clinton not run for president. He had some good moments, especially when he noted that Americans want real change and have had enough of the Clintons. He’s right about that and if Hillary is the nominee that will be her greatest burden in a general election. But though he’s articulate, O’Malley looked like a lightweight compared to Clinton. He may get a tiny boost from Democrats who were not previously aware of his existence. But the idea that he can make any kind of dent in the race, let alone catch up with Sanders for the role of runner-up to Clinton seems unlikely.
The presence of even more marginal candidates on the stage with the real contenders was a change from the huge Republican field that had to be split into two parts. Give Jim Webb credit for saying some truths about the disastrous situation in the Middle East and the threat from China, not to mention the way the administration’s Iran nuclear deal has made the Middle East more dangerous. But Webb, who served in the Reagan administration before becoming a Democrat a decade ago, is still in the wrong party for that kind of message. Lincoln Chafee’s general state of befuddlement probably had some Democrats wishing their party had a second tier debate too.
Aside from showing that Clinton is the one candidate prepared to fight to win, the debate also set a tone that we will hear a lot about next fall. Democrats all agree that they want to spend more money on new entitlements and avoid reforming the existing ones that are bankrupting the nation. They still want to run against George W. Bush and are afraid of telling truths to their core constituencies as the general cowering (with the exception of Webb) before the “Black Lives Matter” movement proved. Their brand of liberal populism has its appeal even if it is rooted in economic myths and demagoguery. Republicans will need to be prepared for this, something that those who are advocating they should nominate a billionaire or someone with inherited wealth don’t seem to recognize.
But the main takeaway from the Democratic debate is that whoever it is that the Republicans nominate, it’s likely that, barring an intervention from the FBI team that is investigating her emails (a stark truth that CNN’s Anderson Cooper deserves credit for mentioning), Hillary Clinton will be their opponent.
