clintonobamawax.thumbnail.jpgIn just a few minutes, there's going to be another Democratic presidential debate -- the last one before next week's Supernova Tuesday flock of primaries/caucuses, and the first to feature only Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And it comes at a time when the polls show Obama is closing in rapidly on a tie with Clinton nationally, as well as in many of the states holding contests on Feb. 5th. Think there might be a tiny bit of pressure on Hillary and Barack when the TV cameras are on them tonight?

The danger for both candidates is if they view the debate too much like a cage match, which led to ugly results just over a week ago in South Carolina. As much as it may feel like a fight to the death for the respective campaigns, the nomination contest is really more like a job interview being conducted by the American people -- and you don't get hired in a job interview by running down the other people who are being considered.

Even taking the less nasty approach of "drawing a contrast" can be risky. For instance, on the surface Obama makes a good political point (and, to be fair, an excellent substantive point) with this riff on John McCain yesterday:

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran [. . .]

"We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that is exactly what I will do," he said.

If Hillary is well-coached smart, she can turn this around easily with a short, simple retort: "John McCain is for staying in Iraq for a hundred years, and I'll end the war as soon as I take office -- I think the American people will see that as a clear contrast." Then Obama is left to mumble, "But what about last year, when... what about five years ago...," etc.

And if he criticizes Clinton as "a candidate who will unite the other party against us," she can calmly note that she had a lot of help getting to that point, from entrenched interests who fought her not because of her personality, but because of the change she and her husband represented -- and if he doesn't think they're waiting to "help" polarize Obama the same way, he's not ready for what's facing him... and voters are taking a huge risk in nominating him.

What would impress me more (as an Edwards supporter who will be casting a ballot on Feb. 5th, I might add) is if instead of just congratulating himself in advance on his ability to frame a contrast with the Republicans and simultaneously build a "new majority" that crosses party lines, Obama would actually demonstrate it.  I know it can be done, because I've spent a fair amount of time writing about it the past couple of years, and Barack has even started echoing some of the themes I've suggested.  But he doesn't do it very prominently, and I think he'd be better off dialing it up a few notches.

Perhaps I'm wasting my time yammering about this messaging stuff, though. Maybe it's really all about having top-notch field operations (and Jane's right, you could easily make that case based on the state contests so far), not to mention the occasional endorsement that gets you a ton of promotional time on a hugely popular radio show (thanks, Markos). But they're going to debate anyway... so go and watch, and use the comments to document the atrocities, as they say.