It's a Good Line
Clinton and Obama had another debate. I did not watch the entirety, but, judging by the post-debate news commentary, and by the “highlight” clips I’ve seen, not a lot happened. Clinton got booed for trying to paint Obama as a plagiarist, but apparently scored some points with her closing lines. They don’t read like much; I guess you had to be there. Nobody has much to say about Obama at all. Tactically, the debate might be considered a draw, or possibly a slim win for Clinton, since a high note at the end will be more memorable. Strategically, the debate was probably a slim victory for Obama, who has the lead and the momentum, and for whom “nothing happened” is moderately good news.
Maybe that is why Obama chose strictly to defend against the plagiarism smear rather than counterattack: he may figure he’s fine as long as the boat isn’t rocked, and counterattacking runs the risk of looking mean-spirited and otherwise unpresidential. Maybe he chose right; certainly, he knows more about politics and campaigning than I do. Nonetheless, I wish he’d taken further Clinton to task for her hypocrisy.
Obama and his speechwriters knew the opportunity would arise in the debate, and doubtless prepared his lines on the subject. If I’d been in charge, he’d have said something more like this:
[relaxed] “Yes, I borrowed a line from my friend and political confidante, at his suggestion. I took that suggestion because they are good words, and deserve to be repeated. There is nothing wrong with that; politicians often repeat words that deserve to remain in the public discourse: [fuzzy look of patriotic pride] ‘We, the people,’ ‘the better angels of our nature,’ ‘I have a dream.’ I notice Senator Clinton herself has pinched a few lines from my own campaign: ‘fired up and ready to go,’ and ‘Yes, we can.’ [grin] That’s okay, too. We might expect her to come up with her own material [raise eyebrows, slight shrug], but if she’s running out of ideas, she is welcome to borrow some of mine [indulgent smile].
[shift to aggrieved sorrow] “What bothers me is not that she steals my lines, or that she accuses me of stealing lines, but that she does both at once. She would have you believe that it’s wrong for me to quote strong political voices, but that it’s all right for her to do so. She wants the privilege of establishing a double standard, and which direction it should operate. [stern frown] In doing so, she seeks to live by the politics of another party, a party which for years has argued that taxes are for other people to pay, that torture is acceptable as long as it’s our guys doing it, that political allies are above the law, that every vote should count only after they turn out to be votes for the right person—all to the detriment of the nation.
[open, honest face] “I believe in a different standard. I believe that the rules, formal or informal, should apply equally to all people. I will repeat true words, no matter who said them, and I certainly will not try to tar my opponents for my own shortcomings.”
You can get through that in sixty seconds, including pauses for emphasis. It calls Clinton a hypocrite while calling attention only to verifiable specifics. It makes Obama look good-humored and positively generous while making it impossible for her ever to use someone else’s words on the campaign trail without attribution, which is damn near impossible; there’s only so many ways to say, “Vote for me!” It ties Clinton to the detested Bush regime, and calls the voters’ attention to the larger fight ahead, once the Democratic primaries are settled.
(Postscript: A counterattack like this would have produced fruit even before the debate ended. As an alert Josh Marshall observed, Clinton borrowed her husband’s lines without attribution right there in the debate. Like Marshall, I believe there’s nothing wrong with this in itself. There is, however, decidedly something wrong with doing so while smearing an opponent for the same thing.)