The Democrats

Obama and Clinton battle on

A bizarre debate in Pennsylvania

“ULTIMATE FIGHTING”, a free-for-all of boxing, kicks and wrestling manoeuvres, has made sweeping gains in American sport viewing, largely at the expense of traditional boxing. Perhaps ABC News has been taking note. The television network hosted the 21st debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of the primary season, and the last before their important primary in Pennsylvania on April 22nd. Rather than focus on health care or Iraq, as previous debates have, the moderators threw an odd bag of unexpected identity-politics questions at the candidates for a full hour, before turning to high-minded policy.

The first question was perhaps predictable. Last week it emerged that Mr Obama had said that “bitter” Americans in small towns, facing economic hardship, “cling” to their guns or religion or anti-immigrant sentiment. Mrs Clinton has spent the past five days talking about nothing else, accusing Mr Obama of being “elitist” and “condescending”. The candidates were each asked if the other would make a good vice-president (both dodged) and if the other could win the presidency as Democratic nominee. Mr Obama said confidently that Mrs Clinton could beat John McCain, the Republican. Mrs Clinton took more prodding to say the same of her fellow Democrat.

The litany of non-policy questions produced a bizarre debate. The controversy of Jeremiah Wright, Mr Obama’s former pastor who had made wildly paranoid and angry anti-American comments from his pulpit, was raised yet again. (Mrs Clinton sought to make a bit more hay.) Mrs Clinton’s daft statements that she had braved sniper-fire to visit Bosnia in 1996 (video had shown her calmly walking off her plane) were chewed over once more. A Pennsylvania voter wondered if Mr Obama believed “in the flag”, because he once said that wearing a flag badge in his lapel was a “substitute” for “true patriotism”. The moderators also brought up William Ayers, a 1970s-era purveyor of left-wing, small-scale terrorism, who once sat on a charity board with Mr Obama, and had hosted a fundraiser for his state senate campaign in the 1990s. At this point, Mr Obama grew exasperated, noting that the questions had little to do with issues facing voters today.

The two candidates did tackle more substantial questions. Asked if America should extend a nuclear-retaliatory guarantee to Israel in the face of a nuclear Iran, Mr Obama seemed to offer a guarded “yes”. Mrs Clinton talked of extending the “security umbrella” to allies in the region in an effort to deter a nuclear-arms race.

Capital-gains tax also produced a long discussion. Mr Obama thinks the tax should be raised, and cited a recent newspaper article about billionaire hedge-fund managers, although he was vague about the likelihood of higher taxes actually generating more tax revenue.

This debate alone will not have made a big impact on the primary. In the long weeks since the last big primary, on March 4th, Pennsylvania has been the overwhelming focus of the candidates’ attention. James Carville, a Clinton confidant, once described the state as Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in the middle. Philadelphia is natural Obama territory, including both many upper-class whites who like his upmarket message and blacks who admire the strongest candidate ever to share their race. Mrs Clinton does well with those Alabama types, largely whites from small- and medium-sized towns, in the middle. And both are trying to pitch a populist message to the rust-belt types around Pittsburgh who have watched jobs disappear.

For all the offbeat questions and answers, one word stood out. Mrs Clinton, in the course of one answer, said “that’s why I’m still in the race.” That “still” pointed up, perhaps unintentionally, that Mrs Clinton remains well behind Mr Obama. She has no hope of making up her deficit among elected delegates to the nominating convention in the last few primaries. She must instead convince a number of unelected party officials (“superdelegates”) to throw the balance of the election in her favour. This means she must make, or abet Republican attacks in making, Mr Obama seem unelectable. The bizarre, cultural questions on Wednesday night, which kept him on the defensive more often than her, may have helped to this end. Only Pennsylvania voters can say for certain.