SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Quickie Debate Wrap-up

NOVEMBER 15, 2007

Quickie Debate Wrap-up

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

This was a solid night for Obama. He was focused, energized, tough, charismatic. Sometimes he can sound like his mind is elsewhere while answering a question--there are lots of "um"s and "uh"s and not much direct eye contact. Tonight he suppressed most of those tics. He showed some pluck in exchanges with Hillary on health care and Social Security. He was specific and knowledgeable on trade policy and immigration, even showing spontaneous flashes of humor on the latter. His only rough patch came on that infernal illegal alien driver's license question, which to my mind shouldn't even be asked. If the story line going into tonight was Obama building momentum, then I see no reason why it wouldn't continue.

Hillary was steady--she committed no mistakes, stuck up for herself when she had to, all in all regained her footing in this format. I think the mission for Clinton tonight was to begin to lay the groundwork for her "closing argument" with voters and against Edwards and Obama. She accomplished both of those things. You heard lots of talk about strength and experience, and she deftly used health-care policy as a window onto her advantages vis-a-vis her rivals. To Obama, the argument was: your plan leaves 15 million people uncovered, mine covers everyone. (Read: "You don't get the job done. I do.") To Edwards, the argument was: you were against universal coverage four years ago, I've been for it for decades. (Read: "I've been fighting for middle class people my whole career. You're a Johnny come lately.") She only gave us a taste of those critiques tonight, but they're very effective and I think we'll see more of them.

Edwards was his usual sharp self. He had a solid response when asked how he could acccuse Hillary of double-talking when he himself had shifted positions on a number of issues since 2004. (Answer: Anyone who doesn't change their mind when circumstances change is ignorant. But that's different than telling different people different things at the same time.) He also worked in a tough critique of the (Bill) Clinton era: In 1993, when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they failed to pass health care and succeeded in passing NAFTA--and both results hurt working people. The upshot, says Edwards, is that you have to elect someone who's willing to take on special interests; not just any Democrat will do. The only potential trouble spot for Edwards came after Hillary addressed the question of whether she'd been playing the "gender card." Blizter then asked if anyone else had thoughts on the question, at which point Edwards chimed in to say everyone should be held to the same standard (perfectly reasonable), then launched into his critique of Hillary being a part of the corrupt system in Washington. The latter seemed a little harsh and out of left field, and drew some boos from the audience. I don't think it was a huge deal, but if, by the time the caucuses roll around, people think Edwards has jumped the shark with his attacks on Hillary, we could look back on this as the moment it became clear.

Biggest loser: Wolf Blitzer--just an extremely lousy moderator. If felt like he'd start cutting people off ten seconds into their responses, and then would keep nudging them with rapid-fire "alrights" even once it was clear they were wrapping up. Very annoying.

A more detailed version to come.

--Noam Scheiber 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

18 comments

Man--see thread below--did we ever see different debates.

- basman

November 15, 2007 at 10:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Focus on Biden too, please. The candidate with the least # of soundbites + most # of facts behind each argument.

- hotshot22

November 15, 2007 at 10:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great wrap up. The irony of Blitzer's poor moderating skills is that he'd often let Richardson (of all people) drone on and on.

- ralphnelle

November 15, 2007 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Biggst real loser Edwards: he was terrible in relation to what he had to do, he has a fart's chance in wind storm to win. He's out of it.

Obama was flat and lost in the sense that he could npt parlay anything, but it is conceivable--God forbid-that he can still win.

Richardson was unbearable.He makes me squirm.

Dodd and Biden were really good but ultimately--too bad--irrelevant.

Kucinich is a joke, a self parody of a candidate.

I agree that Blitzer was lousy: answer: bring back Tim.

- basman

November 15, 2007 at 10:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ps. winner: Hillary, of course, all day every way.--easy call.

- basman

November 15, 2007 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary was very good.  Edwards was better.  Biden was best.

Obama seemed flat to me - after last weekend, I was really surprised at how flat he was.

Blitzer really was awful - but not as bad as Richardson.

Dodd was better than the rest of the bunch, but  he isn't really a candidate in my view.  

- purcellneil

November 15, 2007 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PS --

Hillary and Edwards probably helped themselves.

- purcellneil

November 15, 2007 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary's critique of Obama, on both health care and social security, was dishonest and misleading at best. Call it good politics if you're in to that sort of thing, but it reminds me (as did Crowley's piece on the Clinton media machine) of the thing I have despised most about the Bush years: spin with a shit-eating grin.

That said, if I was in the Obama camp I'd breathe a sigh of relief: if this is the best stuff she's got on Barack's issues, she doesn't have much.

It makes me sick to think we're headed for 4 more years of the same cultural sickness, this time with a Clinton flare.

As I said in the other thread, maybe next time we'll get an audience with a stomach for real debate. This "let's hold hands" BS helps nobody, Hillary-the-untested least of all. If I were Hillary, I'd have told the audience, "Don't boo, I need the practice for my upcoming scuffles with Rudy or Mit or whomever the GOP drags in this time."

Image the applause on that!

- ralphnelle

November 15, 2007 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama did well (I agree that he was much sharper than he has been in previous debates), but he didn't stand out (this is the only point on which I agree with Gergen). He'll do better when we get the time-wasters out of the way. Why can't we just spare everybody some time and narrow it down to three now? THAT would be a debate worth watching.

As I watched CNN's tiresome post-debate coverage I finally understood the meaning of "Clinton News Network."

- ralphnelle

November 15, 2007 at 11:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll join in the chorus of suggesting that Noam's enchantment with Barack blinds him to the fact that Hillary devastated him. He was visibly pouty faced when he thought he was off camera and utterly lost his compsure when forcefully challenged by her and to a lesser extent Edwards. If anything, he pretty firmly established his unelectability tonight because if he crumples in the face of pushbacks like tonight's, just imagine what a seasoned gut fighter like Rudy, McCain and maybe Romney would do to him one on one---Kerry-esque mincemeat.

The problem, see, is that he's not confident enough (because he's not experienced enough) to trust his judgment on his feet in the fast back and forth. Give him a set speech he can work over (like an appellate argument or a law school lecture) and he soars. Demand he be a trial lawyer and react, and he just can't do it. Hence, Edwards was frequently great tonight when responding to a strong answer (like some of Hillary's, Dodd's or Biden's) by initially accepting the strength of the answer and then slowly turning the argument towards his position. Classic jury persuasion maneuvering sometimes brilliantly executed tonight by Edwards.

So in my view Edwards as the true threat to Hillary is the big story tonight. Obama is history.  

- schrek2000

November 15, 2007 at 11:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, maybe my normal distaste for a) Clinton and b) CNN was only exacerbated tonight by having watched this thing at the end of a long day, late in a long week, but: Was it my imagination, or did the audience (or rather a vocal, pro-Hillary chunk of it) play a much bigger role in this than in any of the previous debates? Then CNN gets two Clinton people, James Carville and David Gergen, and a Republican, J.C. Watts, to comment on the candidates' performance? WTF? (Gergen even treated us to the claim that -- pro-Clinton -- audience members booing Obama for criticizing Clinton was evidence that Obama did poorly relative to Clinton.) To ralphnelle's point, how do you watch that without concluding that CNN was trying to set up a "Clinton comes back to her natural place up front" narrative? Scheiber's summary here seems right to me: Obama was solid; Clinton was steady, at least in the sense that she projected what she wanted to project; Edwards was sharp; and Blitzer's moderation was awful. Scheiber didn't watch a different debate; he watched this one with the Clinton supporters' and CNN's applause cues tuned out.

- J.J. Gould

November 15, 2007 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My take:

1. Yawn. They brought up the Iran resolution stuff too late in the debate to matter. That's the biggest and most important hit on Hillary, and it was too late. Maybe the news coverage will bring it up??? I wish that soldier had been like, "Don't send me to war again Hillary!!!"

2. Edwards sure is slick! I don't know whether to swoon or vomit.

3. I find the prospect of listening to Hillary Clinton's voice over the next few years very frightening. Is that sexist? I hate Bush's voice, and I hated Kerry's voice. So I guess not. I jsut can't listen to her. It's horrid. Please, make it stop. It haunts me in my darkest dreams.

4. Clinton brought her goons to boo every time Edwards spoke!!!!!!! Seriously - where did she find these goons? At one point, Edwards said, "She takes money from washington lobbyists" and the boos started...I was like, "Are they booing Edwards attacking lobbyists?" Some of my best friends are lobbyists, so maybe they're more popular than I thought!

Clinton's goons in the audience. That's the only story line of this debate. I was waiting for them to boo Edwards talking about not invading Iran! I guess the goons got that one right.

5. Obama says "But...understand" way too much. I don't like that line.

6. Bill Richardson....I just can't look at the guy on HD. I'm sorry...it's cruel...but there it is.

7. Biden was hilarious

- virginiacentrist

November 15, 2007 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

virginiacentrist -- Hilarious. I used the exact same word commenting on those weird, too-quick boos to my wife tonight: "Oh my God, Clinton's got goons in there."

- J.J. Gould

November 15, 2007 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The booing gave me the creeps. So did their cheering for one word answers.

Worst audience imaginable. They completely deflated Edwards' attacks, and they derailed at least one of Obama's responses to Clinton's chicanery. It shouldn't be allowed in the future.

Honestly, why are we still listening to Dodd, and why did Richardson have 30 minutes to speak tonight? Nobody cares about them.

- ralphnelle

November 16, 2007 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you think any of these people were there booing?

youtube.com/watch

Seriously, this is getting out of hand. In 2003, at first, I hated Dean for being a potential disaster. Then, I started hating Deaniacs.

This year, I hate Hillary....but now her supporters are starting to really get to me too!!! It's their arrogance and entitlement. I'd understand if their candidate was something special - rather than just the wife of this one dude who served as president and who launched her political career when her favorables skyrocketed after that president dude cheated on her repeatedly...........and who won a senate race because her opponent was struck with cancer.......it's all so magical!

- virginiacentrist

November 16, 2007 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't see the debate.  (I'm in Africa.)  But I think VAcentrist is onto something with the "entitlement" rap on HRC.  At risk of catching more flack for getting personal, I think Edwards should add that to his character critique of the senator from NY.

As I've already posted here once, Edwards could simply ask, "Senator Clinton, why did you and your husband choose to move to New York after leaving the White House?  Why not go back to Arkansas or to Chicago, where each of you is from?"  And then the kicker.  "Would you have moved to New York had there not been an open Senate seat?"  

The truthful answer is, of course, 'No,' and if she answers otherwise, everyone will know she's lying.  But if she refuses to take the bait says truthfully that the opportunity to run for the Senate in NY was a big consideration in hers and Bill's decision to move there, then the follow-up question is, "Well, suppose then that there was no open seat in New York, but there was one in Rhode Island, or Maine, or Hawaii?  Would you have moved to one of those states in pursuit of your bald-faced thirst for power and influence?"

- aeromonas

November 16, 2007 at 1:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now, I know, I know, people will accuse me of sexism for the above.  What politician doesn't have a thirst for power and influence?  

The difference with HRC is that it's so inorganic and nakedly obvious.  Of course, Edwards made a bundle as a litigator and honed his speaking skills, took a look around and decided he could parlay his money and charm into political power, and certainly he wanted to be elected to the Senate no less than HRC did.  But he did it in his home state, FOR his home state.  At least, he has the history to make it appear that way.  He can plausibly tell the story like this: "I had reached a position of wealth and prominence in my beloved state of North Carolina, and I saw the way Republican Senator Lauch Faircloth was representing the good people of North Carolina and I didn't like it.  'We can do better,' I said.  And then my next thought was, 'Who better to take on the incumbent than me?'"

With HRC, the story is reversed.  The ambition to lead--somebody, ANYBODY--was primary.  The particularities of people she sought to represent were irrelevant, or at least secondary.  While I doubt Clinton would have dragged her family to North Dakota in search of an open Senate seat--even if she could've have won the nomination/election--it is clear that her reasons for going to New York had nothing to with her having any particular affinity for representing the interests of the people of Utica, or Binghamton, or Rockaway Beach.

- aeromonas

November 16, 2007 at 1:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

vacentrist and aeromonas,

If you guys want to treat yourselves to some intense nausea, check out the comments HRC's supporters are posting on the youtube videos of tonight's debate.

- ralphnelle

November 16, 2007 at 4:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close