David Corn

The political news of the moment, of course, is Thursday night's Democratic debate. The morning-after front-page headline in The Washington Post blared, "Democratic Contenders Step Up Attacks in Debate." But they really didn't--not much. Edwards and Obama mostly stuck to the same critique they had been making of the former First Lady. Each only took a few stabs at the front-runner and then moved on to other matters as it became clear that (a) she was going to give as good as she got, and (b) the audience, which booed several of the attacks, was in no mood to watch Dem-on-Dem violence. It was Clinton who truly intensified her assaults on her key rivals, hurling specific charges at them on policy issues (particularly health care). Previously, she ignored those in her shadow. But with the most recent Iowa poll depicting the race in Iowa as practically a three-way tie, Clinton indeed had to "turn up the heat"---not, as she usually says, on Republicans but on Obama and Edwards.

I scored the Las Vegas debate a draw--no KO's (though fellow CQer Craig Crawford awards Clinton a TKO). And this is good news for Clinton because she certainly needed to stop her slide in the polls. I explain it all here.

But while we're talking about Clinton, a few words about the Other Clinton. It now seems rather amusing that earlier in the year, the politerati were wondering whether Bill would be an asset or liability for Hillary. Would he outshine or upstage her? Would the Clinton campaign have to keep the old wolf at bay? Maybe send him to central Africa for six months. Well, such thinking, in retrospect, was plenty silly.

BC remains quite popular, particularly among Democratic voters who think of the pre-W days as a glorious era of peace, prosperity, wine, roses, milk, and honey--and a time when Democrats (Bill and Hill) bravely stood their ground against evil Republicans (when they weren't busy triangulating). So he's a great and, better yet, popular pitchman for his wife. And since she has generally performed strongly as a candidate, she has not looked small compared to the Big Man.

He appears to be willing to do what it takes to get her elected. (It's a helluva way to get out of the doghouse.) Look at the ad the Clinton campaign released yesterday. It opens with Bill in sweats on a treadmill watching a television set showing a commercial for a succulent, juicy hamburger. The screen freezes and the words appear: "Exercising is hard." The spot goes on to feature former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack trying to dance in a disco ("Dancing is hard") and Hillary mugging "The Star-Spangled Banner" at a ball game ("Singing is hard") before proclaiming that attending the Iowa caucus (to vote for Hillary) will be easy. At the end of the ad, there's a shot of an empty treadmill. Cut to Clinton eating that burger, with a look of extreme satisfaction on his face.

Is there a not-too-hidden message in the ad when moments later it shows a white-haired couple, with the woman saying, "Being married is hard, caucusing is easy"? I don't know. But the ad is the latest evidence that Bill is quite the willing asset for Hillary. He recently defended her after she ran into trouble at a debate. He has campaigned solo for her in Iowa, and he presumably will do more stumping for her as the all-important caucuses approaches. I imagine her strategists see him as the big gun to deploy if she slips any further in the polls.

Yesterday, Post columnist David Broder claimed that there were two "paramount issues" in the Democratic race: immigration and "the prospect of a dual [Clinton] presidency." He's wrong on both counts. At last night's debate, the candidates did split on the question of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but they mostly agreed on the big picture: the need to increase border security and to create a pathway for citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants already here. There was--perhaps surprisingly--little demagoguery on this front.

As for Broder's worry that the public cannot stomach the Clinton's "two-headed campaign," what's the evidence? He writes that the possibility of the Clinton couple back in the White House

will test the tolerance of the American people far more severely than the possibility of the first female president -- or, for that matter, the first black president.

Oy, he screams (or sort of screams), this has never happened before. And he quotes a "friend from the Clinton administration" who says, "There is nothing in American constitutional or political theory to account for the role of a former president, still energetic and active and full of ideas, occupying the White House with the current president." A constitutional crisis in the making? Quick, let's get an opinion from Harriet Miers.

It may be presumptuous to challenge Broder's "friend"--and I do so as no partisan for Hillary--but I assume that Clinton's well-financed campaign has focus-grouped and test-polled Bill's impact on the race and has discovered that Democratic primary voters do not share Broder's fear. It may even be that after the past seven years of incompetence and, at times, idiocy in the White House, general election voters might not be all that anxious about having two smart people residing in the White House, whatever Bill's role might be. And put it this way: if the general election ends up pitting Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, would voters rather see Bill Clinton advising the next president or Judith Giuliani? End of issue. Mr. Broder, you are free to fret about other matters.

NIXON ON REAGAN. What did Tricky Dick and Henry Kissinger think of Ronald Reagan in 1971? According to a new transcript of one of the Nixon tapes, it wasn't very flattering. I have the exclusive here.