Berkley Center

It was John Edwards, I thought, who made the best impression at Monday's Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate. But the real story emerging from last night is that the Democrats are fielding not one, not two, but three credible, thoroughly electable choices for high office. If voter turnout in caucuses and primaries is a reliable metric, then it seems that Democratic voters are, shall we say, motivated. My surmise is that the vast majority of Blue-staters will rally enthusiastically around any of these candidates in a general election. Can the same be said about the fractured Republican base? If John McCain wins the nomination will Giuliani supporters--out of some previously undetected sense of loyalty to the GOP--work phone banks for him late into those autumnal nights? If Mitt Romney gets the nod will Mike Huckabee’s large--though not overwhelmingly large as South Carolina showed us--contingent of Evangelical backers grace him with their ballots? Yup. It was a great night for the Democrats.

Sure there was a little nastiness on display. (A few weeks ago I accurately predicted that South Carolina would be the scene of a brutal “pier-sixer.” Unfortunately, I misunderstood that the belligerents would be Democrats, not Republicans). Did the Senator from Illinois just remark that while “I was on the street you [Hillary Clinton] were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart”? Did the Senator from New York riposte by accusing the Senator from Illinois of having once represented a “slum landlord”?

But there was also some hilarity and even hijinx too. Jon Edwards showed himself to be an accomplished straight man. When Obama commented, “look, race is a factor in our society. There's no doubt that in a race where you've got an African-American, and a woman, and John” -- Edwards’ face soaked up the laughter while contorting into a comic question mark. Larry David’s beloved sidekick, Jeff Garlin, would have a tough time emulating that expression.

Senator Obama reviewing the criteria in an effort to assess whether Bill Clinton “actually was a brother” is Comedy Gold. Hillary Clinton’s aside that “we’re just getting warmed up” after she and Obama had just tried to incinerate each other’s reputations was pretty darn witty as well.

In terms of rhetoric it struck me that Obama is better at monologue than dialogue. He is the single most talented orator in this campaign, if not of this political generation. Yet his debating skills are somewhat less stellar. It was Edwards who seemed most comfortable with the high-speed parrying and impromptu quips. Thus while Obama and Clinton were pummeling one another, Edwards cleverly asked: “This kind of squabbling—how many children is it going to get health care?”

It was also the night in which Senator Obama showed Evangelicals (be they Democrats or Republicans) a little love. He observed that he was a “proud Christian.” He cited Matthew 25:40. He told us he believed “deeply in the precepts of Jesus Christ.” He did everything but ask Wolf Blitzer if he wouldn’t mind passing around the collection plate.

Secularists may be perturbed by this. But like Clinton and Edwards, Obama doesn’t seem overly concerned with secularists right now. As with his two colleagues he is willing and able to make inroads into the GOP’s Evangelical base. Which raises the question: what traditional Democratic constituency will be intrigued by anything McCain, Romney or Huckabee have to offer?