Yesterday on Meet the Press Tim Russert played a short clip of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary debate -- an exchange between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Edwards, with his faux populism front and center, went on the attack against Hillary who retorted on the strength her faux leadership.
MR. RUSSERT: It was interesting watching John Edwards last night.
MR. McMAHON: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: He came in second in Iowa, barely ahead of Senator Clinton. He had to make a decision last night: Was he going to go after Obama or Clinton? He opted to go after Clinton, playing for second place, in effect. Let’s watch Senator Edwards in that exchange.
(Videotape)
FMR. SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That’s exactly what happens. I mean, I didn’t hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she’s not, we hear them. And any time you speak out, any time you speak out for change, this is what happens.
SEN. CLINTON: I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change, I’m running on 35 years of change.
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON: Well, I’ve been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Nothing like a little humor there, right?
Nothing like a little slack, either. The notion that Hillary Clinton is "running on 35 years of change" drew not a comment. Who had ever heard of Hillary Clinton in 1973? She was unknown until the 90s, and then she became gained prominence over the formulation of a health care plan that was soundly rejected. But her most important accomplishments in public life, if you could call them that, were all those times she stood by to protect Bill from the women he groped and dallied with. After 20 years of infidelity, maybe there has been a change.
But at the debate nobody challenged her in any meaningful way. All of the candidates sounded off about the need for change. Edwards went on about the disappearing middle class.
EDWARDS: Thank you very much.
What I would say in response to the discussion that just took place is we have to understand what's at stake. Nobody cares about hearing a bunch of politicians fight. They're not the slightest bit interested in that, and they shouldn't be interested in it.
What's at stake here is a fight for the future of the middle class. And we do have different perspectives on how we fight for the middle class, how we fight for jobs, how we fight for health care.
What has become of the American middle class? George Will provides some insight.
Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled, from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.
Apparently, the disappearing middle class is disappearing because they are getting richer. Or perhaps I should say, we are getting richer. You have to wonder how Democratic rhetoric will play once somebody decides to challenge them on their facts. So far nobody is willing to do that. So far.
Here are the full transcripts of both New Hampshire debates, Democrat and Republican.