For about the first hour of the Democratic debate in Wisconsin, Clinton and Sanders expressed much mutual admiration for each other. Clinton repeatedly pointed to areas where there was general agreement on the end if not always the means. It quickly became clear that the audience they spoke to wasn’t sitting in the university auditorium in Milwaukee, but rather, around television sets in South Carolina. Sander’s overall strategy was to mention issues important to that community such as criminal justice reform, unemployment and healthcare. Clinton’s strategy was to tie herself to Obama and his policies at every opportunity. This was a tack from her last debate performance, where she used the language of “this administration” rather than “Obama” when she found it expedient to be slightly critical of Obama’s policies. This topic of who would best carry the mantle of Obama was an overarching theme of the debate.

The next phase of the debate ended the kissing segment and ushered in the kicking segment. For the most part, these were slightly recycled arguments with few new twists.

Clinton attacked Sanders on a lack of specifics in his programs, including how he would pay for them and who would advise him on foreign policy. However, as I point out in an earlier post, Clinton’s “very specific” plans aren’t in fact that specific. She keeps insisting that Sanders wants to “dismantle” the Affordable Care Act and begin anew a “contentious” debate about healthcare. Just in case you missed it in every other debate, Clinton reminded the audience healthcare reform was known as “Hillarycare” before it was “Obamacare.” She knows it’s a tough fight because she still has the scars to prove it.

As expected, Sanders invoked the topic of campaign finance reform, noting how much funding Clinton gets from Wall Street. True to her strategy for the night, Clinton noted that President Obama also took Wall Street funding and challenged anyone to show how their votes were in anyway influenced by these contributions. Sanders rejoinder was to appeal to common sense, asking people to “give the American people credit,” because “they’re not dumb.” He wondered why the financial firms, pharmaceutical industries and fossil fuel interests would donate large sums of money if they didn’t expect anything in return. This might be an even more effective tactic if he posed the question directly to Clinton.

You could have muted the volume during much of the foreign policy discussion as it turned out to be a re-hash of previous conversations. Sanders dredged up Clinton’s vote on the Iraq war, while Clinton replied she has judgment because President Obama chose her as Secretary of State.  Surprisingly, she cited her support of going after bin Laden as the most difficult choice she had to make. They disagreed over regime change with Sanders warning about “unintended consequences.” Clinton’s responses tended to be along the lines of “it’s complicated,” or “it’s complex,” implying that Sander’s thinking isn’t.

Clinton demonstrated her foreign policy expertise with a command of the issues. It was probably a mistake to invoke Henry Kissinger during the last debate and Sanders seized upon it to point out that for Democrats, Kissinger’s support and mentorship was nothing to brag about. This put Clinton in the awkward position of defending Kissingeresque policies, but the irony was probably lost on the Millennials who overwhelmingly support Sanders.

Clinton also took every opportunity to turn any criticism of her policies into an attack on President Obama (no doubt because Obama has a high favorability rating among the majority of South Carolina voters). The most devious use of this tactic occurred when she tired to shame Sanders for not being more supportive of President Obama immediately before closing statements. It was a blatant “smear tactic.” Clinton even went so far as to falsely state that Sanders wrote the forward (it was a jacket blurb, not a forward) to Bill Press’ latest book Broken Promises. PBS confined Sander’s response to including it in his closing statement because they were out of time (even though the debate ended 10 minutes early). This was the worst moment of the debate for the moderators who were either complicit or unprofessional.

 Rhetorical Advice for Both Candidates

Sanders would do well to not only defend the successes of programs once equated with “socialism” in America, but to point out the excesses of capitalism (aside from income inequality) as well. He would also benefit from painting Clinton as the “no we can’t” candidate as a counter to her pragmatism. Clinton should look to the future she envisions rather than resting on her resume. As she tries to erode support for Sanders, she is being drawn further and further to the left. If she goes too far, she will leave little distinction between them. When that happens, voters will be left with issues of trust and integrity. That would be a losing proposition for Clinton.