In a clever idea for an article, The Politico used tonight's debate to solicit questions from "competing Democratic campaign aides and advisers to the six leading campaigns." The results are interesting, if only for what they say about the other campaigns. We don't know, sadly, which questions come from which camp, but some, like this query for Edwards, reveal a genuine dislike for the target:
Over the past four years, you have collected approximately $580,000 in salary from three jobs—Fortress Investments, your poverty center and the Senate—where you often didn't show up for work. You talk a lot about the importance of hard work and the work ethic your father instilled in you. Was it right for you to get paid so much for what amounted to very little work? Isn't that the kind of inequality your campaign is fighting against?
Obama also comes in for some harsh assaults:
Do you honestly think you can convince voters that there's something new, different, better in the way you do politics when, since entering the Senate, you chose to conduct a real estate deal with a known—now indicted—Chicago criminal?
Interestingly, the question for Hillary are the most substantive and the least personal, either because there's little in the way of scandal left to be uncovered and discussed or because her campaign hasn't particularly offended any of the others. The most interesting is this question on branding:
The Washington Post said that “[your] loyalists describe [you] as the least-known famous person in politics, by which they mean they do not believe people know the real Hillary Clinton. They hope to use town hall meetings, living room coffees and interactive Internet conversations to reintroduce her to voters.” However, you've hired an expert in “thought leadership,” and a corporate branding expert to confront potential “character issues.” Why did your campaign hire these consultants? What have you learned from them?
Tellingly, there's nothing on her chief advisor's connection to unionbusting. Somewhat more generally, it occasionally looks to me like Obama and Edwards are actually drawing fire from Hillary. The second-tier candidates, after all, have no incentive to knock Hillary down -- doing so will only elevate Obama or Edwards. They do have an incentive to destroy the lesser candidates in the first tier, because it's conceivable that someone like Richardson could move into the space currently occupied by Edwards and Obama.
