Democrats get dirty

It would appear that the gloves are finally coming off in the Democratic presidential race and that the camaraderie and hippie love that characterized the initial stages of the race have been replaced by combat and vitriol. Barack Obama promised, in an interview with the Times, that he would sharpen his criticism of the frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, but it was really John Edwards who lobbied the harshest criticism against the New York Senator. The question is will these attacks work? Are they too little too late? And how will infighting among the leading Democrats affect their chances in 2008--regardless of which candidate they ultimately endorse.

The attacks certainly are not too little; if anything Edwards and Obama are slathering on the criticism, condemning every aspect of Senator Clinton's candor and campaign. Her general electability has been called into question, her vague skirting of direct answers to questions has been noted and her honesty and sincerity have been assaulted. And rightly so, we think. The Clinton campaign has been premised upon not giving any soundbites or inches for rivals to jump on or Youtube to viralize. Consequently, she has been guarded to the point of obfuscation. As cliche as it sounds, people deserve some frank and honest answers following an administration that has propogated secrecy and vaguery.

The way that Edwards and Obama have gone about tackling the issue is the tricky part, however. No one wants to slip into smarmy personal attacks (lest the incur the flubbery wrath of Bill Richardson), but the issue--for Obama in particular--is how to make substantive criticism without appearing desperate and/or caustic. People have been looking for teeth and muscle from Obama, not just "sharpened criticism" or platform distinctions. But he runs a serious risk of appearing hypocritical, of abandoning "the politics of hope" for a more negative, "politics as usual" approach. And that is where John Edwards comes in. Despite some cries that Obama underachieved in the last debate, that he delivered far less bite than was promised, he was able to remain afloat above the verbal combat while still lodging some serious complaints concerning Clinton. It was Edwards who did the dirty work and Obama who came out unscathed. This could oddly end up working like Bush has campaigned in the past: sending out Dick Cheney to make the truly nasty attacks while he remains positive, upbeat, "compassionately conservative." By kneecaping Clinton, Edwards might end up sending discouraged moderates towards Obama, rather than himself. Only time and polls will tell.