In the debate over health care mandates, rather than argue for his plan, or against Obama's, Edwards went after Hillary as a force "of the status quo" fighting those trying to bring about change. It backfired. Clinton had looked a little tired accusing Obama of flip-flopping, but Edwards riled her up enough to elicit a furious recitation of the change Hillary had actually fought for: S-CHIP and National Guard benefits and on and on. It was quite impressive, and impassioned in a way Hillary rarely is. Thus far, Edwards has been a bit odd in the debate. Hillary and Obama have talked a lot of policy, engaging in a substantive back-and-forth on health mandates. Edwards entered to argue in Obama's defense, but not on the substantive issue of mandates, as he agrees with Hillary, but in the theoretical realm of change. But in the context of mandates, what sense does Edwards' reply make? He's undercutting his own vision of the sort of change we need. Maybe he's decided to help push Obama past Hillary in this debate, but a rhetorician as talented as Edwards could do that without contradicting his own position on the issues. And the substantive, policy-focused passion Edwards exhibited earlier today was totally absent in these questions. It's early in the debate, of course, but health care is Edwards' strongest issue, the place where he was the furthest in front of the field, and he totally whiffed the opportunity to emphasize that leadership.
