Leadership questions bring edge to Democrats’ debate

Setting aside their admittedly similar policy prescriptions, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton differed sharply in a televised debate Thursday over which of their divergent leadership styles offered the best chance of success.

The tension in the nearly two-hour session came as the campaigns’ trajectories collided in Texas, which along with Ohio is a pillar of the next round of primaries, on March 4. The debate opened with polls showing that Clinton’s dominance in Texas has evaporated into a dead heat, as her troubled campaign suffered under Obama’s 11-contest winning streak.

Most of their exchanges at the University of Texas debate, sponsored by CNN, Univision and the Texas Democratic Party, were calm recitations of their proposals. But the debate flared to life when the candidates were asked about Clinton’s allegation this week that Obama had plagiarized a section of a speech made by one of his supporters, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

“The notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who’s one of my national co-chairs, who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think is silly,” Obama declared, to cheers from the audience. He added: “Sen. Clinton has a fine record. So do I. And I’m happy to debate on the issues, but what we shouldn’t be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time lifting the country up.”

Clinton, in response, repeated a line from earlier in the week. “Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words.” She went on to mock Obama’s campaign slogan, “Change we can believe in.”

“Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in; it’s change you can Xerox,” she said, drawing some jeers from the crowd.

The dispute between the two did not end there. Clinton closed the debate with a emotional recounting of her belief that “the hits I’ve taken in life” were nothing compared to those suffered by Americans she meets every day.

“Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine,” she said, in words that underscored the straits faced by her campaign. “ . . . I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.”

Minutes later, the Obama campaign circulated similar remarks uttered by former Democratic candidate John Edwards, whose support both Clinton and Obama have been seeking.

“What’s not at stake are any of us,” Edwards said in a December debate, in words he repeated when he left the campaign in January. “All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”

Much of the pre-debate conversation centered on whether Clinton would launch a major offensive to gain ground she has lost to Obama in recent contests among those who once formed the backbone of her campaign, including lower-income and less-educated voters, women, and white men. But, with the exception of the “Xerox” line, there were no new thrusts from the New York senator. Indeed, at times she appeared tentative.

For days, for example, she has forwarded the argument that “one of us” is qualified to be commander in chief at a time when international events and a floundering economy pose stiff problems. But when asked by questioner Jorge Ramos whether she meant that “Obama is not ready and not qualified,” she demurred.

“Well, I believe I am ready, and I am prepared. And I will leave that for voters to decide,” she said, before returning the focus to an earlier question about healthcare.

When Ramos asked his question again, Clinton mentioned her experiences as first lady and in the Senate, and said they had made her “prepared and ready on Day One” to be president. She did not mention Obama.

Obama, for his part, retorted, “I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t think I was prepared to be commander in chief.”

The debate illustrated a central argument in the Democratic campaign: Which stands the better chance of success -- Clinton’s more combative approach or Obama’s more conciliatory demeanor?

Clinton said she was “amused” recently when a backer of Obama was unable, in a TV interview, to name a signature legislative accomplishment of the Illinois senator.

“Words are important and words matter, but actions speak louder than words,” Clinton said. Later, she more directly took on Obama’s call for national unity.

“We do need to unite the country, but we have to unite it for a purpose around very specific goals,” she said. “It is not enough to say, ‘Let’s come together.’ We know we’re going to have to work hard to overcome the opposition of those who do not want the changes.”

The two had a lengthy dispute over healthcare, in which they differed over whether Americans should be required to buy health insurance, as Clinton proposes, or have it be optional for adults, as Obama suggests. Obama said the two have “a fundamental difference . . . in terms of how change comes about.”

“Sen. Clinton of late has said, ‘Let’s get real,’ ” he said. “And the implication is . . . the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional.” Actually, he argued, supporters share his view about a need to “stop the endless bickering” in Washington.

“The point is this,” he said. “We can have great plans, but if we don’t change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen.”

Much of the debate served to underscore the Democratic duo’s ideological proximity. On immigration, both suggested the nation should take more care in its pursuit of law-abiding immigrants. Clinton expressed concern about children who come home to find their parents have been rounded up in immigration raids; he called for a calming of rhetoric, saying it had an ugly undertone often directed at the Latino community.

Both said that the fence separating Mexico and the United States should be rethought, and that technology might provide a better solution. Both agreed that American students should learn foreign languages and that immigrants should strive to learn English even as Americans should broaden their own linguistic horizons.

On Cuba, they managed to sound similar despite differing views. Asked whether the upcoming change of leadership in Cuba might open the door to better relations, Clinton stuck to her view that American presidents should not meet with dictators unless the dictators’ behavior first changes.

Obama, who regularly talks up his contrasting position that American presidents need to be more assertive about reaching out to enemies as well as friends, appeared to shift closer to Clinton’s point of view.

“I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress that Sen. Clinton was talking about,” Obama said.

That prompted moderator Campbell Brown to point out that Obama had earlier “called U.S. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations. So you’ve backtracked now.”

Obama said he supported “eventual normalization.”

“And it’s absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure,” he said.

--

cathleen.decker@latimes.com

maria.laganga@latimes.com

Times staff writer Nicholas Riccardi contributed to this report from Austin.