As the only remaining uncommitted BMG front-pager, here’s my assessment. No one did “badly,” and no one made any big mistakes that I caught (except when Richardson said he’d negotiate with the “Soviet Union” — oopsie).
I’d say that both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton had superb nights. They were both strong and focused, and they both took the opportunity to make their case for why they are the best agents for change. You may or may not agree with their arguments, but they made them as clearly as I’ve heard either of them do recently.
Clinton, thank heavens, seems to have abandoned the ill-advised “warm and fuzzy” makeover that she tried to apply in the final days in Iowa. She’s not warm and fuzzy — and she doesn’t need to be. I thought her answer to the guy from WMUR on the question about who’s “likeable” was brilliant — she basically made fun of him, saying, in effect, “what a stupid question” without actually using those words. More generally, she was, well, presidential for most of the night — she gave thoughtful answers to serious questions, and she made a good case for herself as a change agent.
Edwards, too, was given enough time to explain why he is taking such an aggressive line in this campaign, and he made the case well. As I said, you may not agree with it, but after tonight you can’t say you don’t understand why he’s doing it. He did have one bad moment, though — when his self-described biggest accomplishment in the Senate (the Patients’ Bill of Rights) was revealed never to have passed the House. I heard echoes of his debate with Dick Cheney, when he didn’t have a good answer to Cheney’s attacking his “undistinguished” career in the Senate.
Obama was solid and thoughtful — but that’s not his strength, and that’s not why he won Iowa. He still hasn’t solved the problem of translating his electrifying performance on the stump (most recently seen at top form after his Iowa win) into the debate setting, even this more relaxed one. He did fine, and didn’t make any big mistakes (though his weird offhand comment in the “likeability” exchange was unfortunate), but I doubt that he significantly advanced his cause tonight, whereas I’d say Edwards and Clinton did.
Bill Richardson did fine. But in general, I have to say that his answers struck me as less well thought-out, less nuanced, than those of the other three. He’s not going to break into the top three in NH, and I wonder whether he’ll stick it out past Nevada.
Overall: again, a terrific night for the Democrats. The last question, in which they all talked about how much better they are as a group than the Republicans, was spot-on.
David… Bill Richardson made a far more serious mistake than his Soviet Union goof.
<
p>Richardson is a good guy, and funny, but he displayed how he doesn’t get it during the St. Anselm’s debate. Edwards, Clinton and Obama were mixing it up – a welcome development – and engaging along the true fault lines of the issue of change. Richardson tosses cold water on the discussion, quipping:
Ha-ha, Bill, but wrong response. We were getting a rare glimpse of where change emanates from vs. the maintenance of status quo. Avuncular Bill’s unfortunate instinct was to make light of it.
<
p>He did it again later. At a testy moment, Richardson said:
Oh, really? It’s about time we had some real, public debate – as we did this evening and even when it gets testy – about what lobbyists do on a daily basis to influence our elected representatives.
<
p>These were two disappointing attempts by Richardson to dowse the most revealing, authentic debate moments I’ve seen in a while.
about nuclear proliferation – he said something about all these loose nukes that have fallen into the hands of terrorists. Instead of impressing me with his experience, he always makes me wonder how he managed to hold his past positions.
<
p>He also made some claim about cap and trade vs. carbon tax, that only the latter would result in higher costs being passed on to consumers. I remember it being an effective moment for Obama, who spoke for the cap and trade system, as well, but who made a point of levelling with people that addressing global warming won’t come without costs, that it will mean sacrifices and changing how we use energy.
Those comments by Richardson were obviously planned laff lines. But they were inappropriate — that was authentic, valid “debate” — not nasty sniping or anything like that. I’d disagree with your characterization of those exchanges being about “change vs. status quo”; rather, I think they were interesting and provocative discussions about how you actually get change done. But yes, Richardson’s comments were a mistake.
Edwards did very well indeed. Clinton did quite well. Obama seemed a bit flat, but did well enough.
<
p>Personally, as I wrote in the debate thread, I think they were all tired. We do ask a lot of these human beings what with 24-hour news cycles and constant internet-based gossip. On the other hand, being President is tiring too.
<
p>I thought the best line of the night, however, was when, in response to Gibson’s rather self-important line about Obama’s reaction to the question he asked the Republicans (how would you attack Obama, more or less), the Senator said he hadn’t given those responses his closest attention because he had been trying to watch the football game at the same time.
Blue Mass Group is itself more than a six way conversation, to the benefit of all, in my opinion. But I realize that T.V. is a very different medium, and understand your point. One thing nobody talks about much: the Democratic candidates on gay marriage. In another post, KBusch was concerned about Kucinich’s pro-choice credentials (upon which issue he seems to have flip-flopped, to my displeasure and distaste), but it seems that a large percentage of MA progressives are giving all the Democratic presidential candidates a pass on gay marriage. Understandably, most people are more concerned with certain issues than they are with other issues, and consensus on everything is impossible and probably undesirable. Would most people agree that the general opinion of Democrats in Massachusetts is that being pro-life is a non-starter but opposition to gay marriage is regrettable but acceptable? As a pro-life (or anti-choice, if you must) Democrat, I find this unfortunate.
Id agree that being a pro-life Dem can be very hard and that candidates who outside of MA would be called DINOs for more moderate positions on gay marriage couldnt win high office (oh no Reilly only likes civil unions!) but in the national spotlight we let it pass because of electability. As a pro-life pro-gay marriage Democrat I find it hard myself to listen to the discourse. Clearly the right for everyone to be treated equally in my view is far more paramount than the “right” to an abortion. I think civil rights issues including racial ones should be more prominent but we take the black vote for granted now and never push that either, especially if you hear the silence on Jena 6 or Katrina very recent issues of blatant racism still existing in America.
<
p>Anyway back to the debates I think Clinton on policy and substance issues presented a very clear case for why she could be a change agent. Her flip flopping on the war, while it went unnoticed by her opponents and the moderator, is a welcome breath of fresh air. She was her most progressive this evening and most combatitive.
<
p>But remember substance doesnt win debates, just ask Richard Nixon. She came off screamy and combatitive, and I hate to say this, but when candidates, female ones especially, lecture over their opponents and yell too loud it makes people uncomfortable. My dad compared it to Shannon O’Brien who probably lost to Romney because men thought she appeared too angry in the debates.
<
p>Edwards did real well, he came across as very authentic, having his parents in the room must have helped, and for the first time I believed he wasnt a snake oil salesmen and liked his pitch. I also like that he was Obamas attack dog.
<
p>Obama appeared the most reasonable candidate, the most intellectual, and the most thoughtful, and stayed above the fray and defended himself well, but he has to get that passion into the debate and so far he doesnt appear as animated in the debates.
<
p>So I mostly agree with David but Edwards Id say is the real winner, and Hillary lost ground I think.
…but I don’t recall her doing what I would consider yelling. Whatever nuances there may have been in her tone, I’m sure the Iowa results had something to do with it. I don’t blame her.
…on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. George confronts him with his comments last night saying “he didn’t accuse McCain of supporting amnesty for illegals”. Then George shows him one of the two commercials where he does accuse McCain of supporting amnesty. ROMNEY THEN SAYS HE TOLD HIS STAFF NOT TO DO THAT!!! Yet he approved the message. An incredulous Stephanopoulos asks him if he watched his own commercial.
<
p>The funniest thing is that Romney by coming in second in New Hampshire, winning Wyoming and second in Iowa could wind up being the leader in delegates and votes next Wednesday but looking like the big loser. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
I did watch both debates last night and it seemed to me that each party is running for election on a different planet. It might have been more interesting if the questions were cross-pollinated a bit more. “The candidates in the other party are talking about about (this issue). What do you think?”
<
p>I had been so deep in looking at the Dem candidates and last night was a good reminder that the nuances between the Dem candidates are nothing compared to what the Republicans are saying. I’ll work for any of the Ds in the general election.
<
p>My favorite moment from the Republican debate was in Huckabee’s response to the “what if it’s Obama rather than Hillary” question:
<
p>
<
p>We’d be wise to listen to that last bit of advice too.
<
p>I’m still undecided between Obama and Edwards. I had started leaning more Obama but decided to throw some cash Edwards’ way after his performance last night – he needs it more right now.
I too am torn between the two, with Edwards getting the nod because he was out front on most of the common issues. However, Obama’s rise in popularity appears to give him the lead in electability. As for last night’s debate, I think I would agree that Edwards was the winner, but both Obama and Clinton were close behind, and Richardson a bit behind them.
<
p>As one who also watched the Republican debate, I would agree with a prior commentor that it would have been preferable to cross-polinate some of the issue questions. For example, much of the Republican time was spent on illegal immigration, with too little thoughtful response, other than maybe Guliani comment that it was a complex issue. I wondered how the Democrats would address the same questions. I would hope someone would step up and make the connection between illegal immigration and the unfair trade policies that have been enacted through pressure from the multinational lobbyists. Wouldn’t there be a lot less pressure to migrate for jobs if the work done in their home countries provided similar rewards for work?
<
p>As for the Republican debate itself, it seemed to be a coordinated attack on Romney, not that he doesn’t deserve it. However, I thought McCain came across a little too flippant with his barbs, to the extent he detracted from the seriousness of this election. The best line of the night was during the discussion of affordability of health care, when Ron Paul said something to the effect “maybe we could afford healthcare if we didn’t waste $1T on an illegal war!”. He also showed some strength in economics, connection the dots between our massive trade deficit ($700B+ per year), the federal operating deficit (really about $500B a year, despite claims otherwise) and the rising cost of tangible goods, as a result of the demise of the dollar. I hope the Democrats pay attention to these type of real issues, not so much because they may need to in order to get elected, but because they will need to to manage the country back where it belongs.
We Won the Debates was frontpaged on dKos. DHinMI opines that the Republicans appeared small, petty, and nasty with each other. The Democrats complimented each other and the most cross-talk occurred when they all tried to shoot down stupid (right-wing-framed) questions from the moderator.