Debate Postgame

If John Edwards or Barack Obama were the frontrunners at this point, I think they would have performed just fine in the debates. Edwards' highs are emotive and personal, and Obama's are lofty and aspirational, but they both hit them and they both had only minor moments of awkward. But, of course, Hillary Clinton is the front runner. She didn't stumble at all, she hit a few high points, and since nobody tried to tear her down, nobody succeeded in tearing her down. Under the circumstances, it's a clear win for her.

Nothing's going to happen until somebody with a better shot than Joe Biden or Mike Gravel makes a serious move, but I think the real contenders are making the right calculation that it's not worth their while to do it yet. I bet this race stays boring for a few months yet.

UPDATE: Huh. Other professional journalists agree but CNN's focus group seems to have given the win to Obama.

Photo by Flickr user Marcn used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Objectively speaking, Obama was the clear winner.

Posted by blah | July 23, 2007 9:25 PM

"Professional journalists"? wow Matt, way to go promoting yourself.

Posted by Sex | July 23, 2007 9:35 PM

First debate I've watched, and the win goes to the Democrats. I don't see any candidate as having performed significantly better than any other. The contrast of them with the vacuousness of the Shrub is stunning.

Posted by Arun | July 23, 2007 9:36 PM

Sadly, I can't vote for Hillary, as I am a liberal, and she is to the right of Richard Nixon.

Posted by Freddie | July 23, 2007 9:50 PM

I think Matt's analysis was spot on in the sense that the three "top tier" candidates all did pretty well, and for that reason nothing really changes (and the supporters of each can find something to be happy about).

I did find it a little annoying in the CNN post-debate analysis that Jeffrey Toobin immediately characterized Obama as being "naive" in his response to the question as to whether or not he would talk with Iran and/or Syria as President. He went on to state that Clinton's answer, in contrast, made her seem "presidential."

I saw a brief clip of both Obama's and Clinton's responses to this question and did not think this was the case; and in particular thought Clinton's statement about not wanting to be used for "propaganda" purposes, a bit silly.

Admittedly, I did not see either candidate's complete answer, so I may have missed something. Though I must say, I was really surprised that Toobin would come out so strongly against one candidate in favor of another.

Since when is a candidate's willingness to talk with our enemies, when this is exactly what every reasonable (serious) foreign policy expert has recommended (including the authors of the ISG report)- considered "naive."

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Posted by Emes | July 23, 2007 9:50 PM

Wait till Mitt Romeny demolishes all these candidates by exposing them as the tools of Josef and Karl.

Posted by gregor | July 23, 2007 10:03 PM

I covered CNN's screwing of America at the link.

There was precisely one (1) question that asked a candidate to defend their policies, rather than simply state what they are. By doing the latter, the "debate" allowed the candidates to simply spew hot air and make vague promises.

Shouldn't we be able to do better than that?

If this question (youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A) had been asked, and had been followed with additional questions about the same topic, wouldn't it have severely damaged Hillary's political career? So, like, why didn't CNN ask it and drive the point home?

Remember the devil's bargain they made with the other Hussein? Perhaps they've got something similar going on for the "debates".

Posted by My coverage | July 23, 2007 10:07 PM

I thought the immediate attention CNN gave to the "would you chat with the bad foreign leaders" question was really excessive.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 23, 2007 10:22 PM

Can we avoid inane phrases like "won the debate" unless they are actually defined?
In a rational world "winning" the debate means coming out of it with more potential voters on your side than when you went in. As such, winning is clearly the wrong metaphor since more than one person can "win", and more than one person can "lose".

Secondly, before being told the opinions of "professional journalists", can we have some description of exactly WTF the opinions of these people are worth more than a pail of warm spit? I am not complaining about their opinions, I am complaining about their judgement. These people that, for many many many years now have exhibited very little ability to apprehend what is important in politics, or to tell when they are being lied to. Why are there opinions on who "won" any more valuable than those of five random guys at the nearest bar? If we want to get professional opinions, how about the opinions of sociologists or psychiatrists or political scientists or, heck, casting directors --- you know, pretty much anyone with even a smidgeon of relevant experience?

Posted by Maynard Handley | July 23, 2007 10:24 PM

I thought the whole thing was a good generic win for the Democrats, projecting an image of a party with a sense of humor, optimism, affable solidarity, cultural savvy and a healthy, can-do spirit of practical problem solving.

In a notable role reversal from just a few decades ago, when the irrepressibly sunny Reagan laughed down the dour Jimmy Carter with his "there he goes again" mocking, Republicans have become the new nattering nabobs of negativity, a bunch of cranky old farts wringing their hands and squeezing their sphincters about terrorists climbing in the basement windows; immigrants squatting on the front lawn; war without end; the decline of civilization and morality; the collapse of martial virtue; the fall of man; the rise of the anti-Christ and the approach of the end times.

The least apocalyptic of the bunch is Romney, and even he conveys the impression of a mannequin-man barely holding it together on the fringes of sanity, armed against collapse with a bottle of hair dye and a department store-bought smile. He's slightly less dour only because he's the least authentic. The true, authentic Republican spirit is now unrelieved doom and despair, set off by the scent of sulphur.

It's hard to get people to vote for you when your overall message is that politics doesn't really matter, because the worst is already upon us. If I were a true believing Republicant, all I would want to do is hunker down in my survivalist shelter with a lifetime supply of ammo, and get ready to fight off the Latino Lizard People and the Mutant Muslims. Voting would be the least of my concerns. The Democrats manage to identify problems, but the problems are of a more practical, less cosmic and existential nature, and they project an energetic confidence in our ability to solve them.

It's really so evident now that the Republicans are a party in precipitous decline. The GOP is the party of flagellation, chastity belts and the terrifying approaching hoofbeats of the Four Horsemen. They appear determined to preside over their own private end times, and drag their once victorious party down into the fiery pit of finality. The ones who haven't lost all their marbles must be bitterly ruing the day that let the Left Behind wingnuts into the country club, and then handed the ceremonial keys to that burned-out, bonehead, born again drunk who now runs their party.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 23, 2007 10:28 PM

Hillary is much better at debate than public speaking. When she gives a prepared speech, she's shrill and hard on the ear, but she was good tonight. I was puzzled by her "comprehensive 3 point plan" for Iraq. Also, I thought it was tacky to claim to be running on your own merits after bragging about all the foreign leaders you met while First Lady. YouTube video was atrocious.

Obama stumbled near the end and started rambling after being attacked by Gravel’s Wall Street Bankers. Got big applause on healthcare question mainly because he got first crack at attacking the insurance companies. Had best video.

Edwards reinforced his slick perception by attacking Hillary with left-handed praising of her husband’s accomplishments and then added insult to injury by questioning her taste in fashion. Video was decent.

Posted by Just Karl | July 23, 2007 10:28 PM

"Professional journalists"? wow Matt, way to go promoting yourself.

Gee, Sex, have you ever published an article in a major political publication? Does the Atlantic sign your regular paycheck? Have you ever been on a TV news show? Do you have a contract to write a book on contemporary politics?

There's a reason they (used to) call him "Big Media Matt." He IS a professional journalist, and has been for years.

In regards to the debate, I think that bloggers and blog-addicts forget that most people's exposure to Obama is relatively light. (In fact, only wonky types really remember his 2004 convention speech. For the rest of America, he just dropped out of the sky this last winter.) I think this indicates a positive trend for Sen. Obama. The more people see him, the more they like him.

Posted by Philly | July 23, 2007 10:38 PM

Nothing's going to happen until somebody with a better shot than Joe Biden or Mike Gravel makes a serious move, but I think the real contenders are making the right calculation that it's not worth their while to do it yet. I bet this race stays boring for a few months yet.

Agreed. This campaign is still a summertime lark. Eventually we'll have to see if either one of Obama or Edwards really wants to be President. If they do, they will have to stop graciously fluttering around Clinton like two callow suitors at HRC's debutante ball, and make some effort to take her down. Of course the boy-girl-boy tableau staging of the three candidates doesn't help.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 23, 2007 10:46 PM

Nevermind all that. The real question is: does Philly have an iPhone?

Posted by phil | July 23, 2007 11:05 PM

No, of course not. I'm not a fuckin' professional journalist! My phone doesn't even have a camera!

Posted by Philly | July 23, 2007 11:08 PM

Hey Philly, I'm not saying I'm a professional journalist, and I don't want to think of Matt as one either, not as an insult, but because HE'S TOO GOOD TO BE ONE. If he was a professional jounralist like Maureen Dowd or Howard Kurtz right now, he wouldn't be talking about policy but about "Was Hillary's choice of a red dress relevant to a Democratic Debate?" and "Why were those losers like Gravel, Kucinich, Biden, and Dodd invited? I mean puh-lease, nobody from my bridge club would ever vote for them."
Matt, we love you, keep up the good work and don't ever think of yourself as some goddamn journalist.

Posted by Sex | July 23, 2007 11:16 PM

The debate format was a success because it presented a new and interesting format for political discussion which relies on public participation. However, I still think it overlooks some issues which although they are important, may not be hot button issues or ones that the candidates have prepared for; which is what I was hoping for in this debate. For example, an issue that seems to be at the heart of many of the most hotly debated topics is global poverty. Immigration, terrorism, and national security are very important issues facing our country and get much attention, but global poverty is the thread that connects them all. It would be nice to hear the candidates’ opinions on this issue.

Posted by Andrea | July 23, 2007 11:16 PM

Thanks for clarifying... maybe it's just that I don't think it's such a horrible thing to be a professional journalist. As much as I share your loathing of Kewl Kids journalists, I do think there are a fair number of excellent working reporters out there, they're just not the folks we see chortling along with Chris Matthews.

Posted by Philly | July 23, 2007 11:26 PM

As someone who went into the debate very apathetic about Hillary, having had to endure a very boring speech she gave a few months ago at the "Emily's List" lunch, I was surprised about how well she did in this format. She came across not only as experienced, articulate, calm and cool-headed, but also able to speak clearly and with the "common" touch. My heart has been with Obama, but my brain is now leaning towards Hillary.

Posted by Lisa | July 23, 2007 11:28 PM

It would be nice to hear the candidates’ opinions on this issue

Ohhhh, I'm pretty sure they all have some candidate to head up the World Bank out there who has some position papers from the Univerisity of Chicago and econometric models that when decifered probably prove that a combination of loan sharking and open markets will have all those third world boats rising soon. Be glad you'll probably never have to know these things before you vote for them.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 23, 2007 11:33 PM

Hillary continues to strike as being rather like the Eveready bunny, ready to pop up and bang the drums for “experience” and “toughness” with programmed talking points geared to win applause and headlines.

Obama, on the other hand, strikes me (as one woman in CNN’s focus group perceptively remarked) as having more carefully thought about issues, with considerable depth and gravitas - hence clearly preferable as a leader capable of sifting weighty counsel from differing viewpoints and reaching wise decisions.

Posted by Justin X | July 23, 2007 11:46 PM

The Presidency is not a family heirloom.

Posted by John Burns | July 23, 2007 11:57 PM

Matt, we love you, keep up the good work and don't ever think of yourself as some goddamn journalist.

Well, umm, he is one.

I think the point was some suprise that he agreed with the Mandarin class and the focus group didn't, which means he might be right or at least that he is developing instincts more like them which could be positive, negative or neutral depending on your opinion of them.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 24, 2007 12:00 AM

I've acquired something of an addiction to the Edwards Hair Video. I completely missed what the images were the first time I saw it, but I'm loving it now...

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 24, 2007 12:15 AM

Dan Kervick's take at 10:28 is a little work of art.

Posted by lampwick | July 24, 2007 12:16 AM

I find it amusing that the *professional* world virtually all have declared Hillary as THE winner amongst the Dems for all time...perhaps it's because they find delicious the idea of a Hillary -v- any Rep dog/cat fight in the general...it would aid them *professionally* ever so much...

That aside, I find it a real study in how these candidates are perceived...I agree with Justin that Obama strikes me as a very thoughtful, not constrained so by the beltway process...he is inspiring in much the same way I felt about Kennedy...and I, for one, desperately need some inspiration these days.

I also agree the entire cast (save perhaps Gravel as I don't know how other world leaders would take to his *style*) is a stark and wholly refreshing contrast with what we've had and what's being peddled by the current crop of Reps. That alone gives one encouragement.

To all the *professional* journalists...why not listen to these sorts of functions with some real world folks...non beltwayers...see how we see things a bit? I would really love to see more broad coverage of all the candidates, not just the *pro* chosen ones...just a thought...

Posted by G Davis | July 24, 2007 12:17 AM

I thought this debate was probably the best so far, though I did not care for Anderson Cooper's snapping of the whip as soon as a candidate veered, even slightly, off course.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards I thought all did especially well, Obama getting a bit more comfortable with his answers than previously. I thought Kucinich did well too, much more so than the other candidates. Biden is increasingly annoying with his "I'M SO SICK OF THIS [fill in the blank]" line. We know you think you're right, prove it and motivate some voters instead of crying loudly about it.

Who won? Who cares. Edwards gave a consistent run of responses in my view, though he's my current lean. Obama moved himself forward the most from previous debates in my view. Clinton seemed Presidential for whatever that's worth. Gravel is a waste of time and energy, Dodd comes across as uninspired though made quite a few points of interest that weren't directly asked and Richardson, as usual, seemed only partially there (debates don't like him for some reason).

my 2 cents.

Posted by Fred F. | July 24, 2007 12:35 AM

Wow: sneaky blogwhore Chris Kelly is even blogwhoring on YouTube these days?

It's not as if he's voting for a Democrat anyway: he's up with Tancredo and the other xenophobic pantpissers.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 24, 2007 1:36 AM

Agree with comment somewhere above that Dan Kervick's first comment is a work of art, very funny. Unfortunately, missed most of the debate so can't really talk about it. I did catch Hillary's tight, carefully worded comment about talking (or rather not talking) to Iran and Syria, though. It's exactly this sort of implicitly hawkish response that makes me feel like Hillary is basically closer in spirit and ideology to the PNAC crowd than she is to Kucinich or perhaps even Edwards/Obama. I mean, do we want Neo-Con Lite at this juncture, or do we need a more fundamental change in direction as a nation? Yeah, she'd certainly be better than Bush, no question, but I'm afraid we need a little more of a geo-political shift than that. Her lead in the polls disturbs me--wake up Democrats. She comes across (to me) as some kind of robotic, benzadrine pop-adder. But, maybe there's something I'm missing, perhaps her particular charms are lost on me.

Posted by Warren | July 24, 2007 5:56 AM

If professional journalists agree, it must be so!

Posted by joejoejoe | July 24, 2007 7:50 AM

If you were Obama, which would you care about more: that professional journalists thought you lost the debate, or that the voters watching thought you won?

It's all very nice in Punditland to think that the opinions of journalists, professional or otherwise, means anything. But they don't elect anyone, and fewer and fewer people are listening to them these days, anyway, since they've been so consistently wrong for the past four years.

Besides, as Matt notes, caring about who wins a debate a year and a half before the election is like caring about who scores the first basket in an NBA game.

Posted by Fred App | July 24, 2007 8:58 AM

Yet another reason why there's no use in listening to the opinions of "professional journalists," who are completely out of step with the rest of the public. Note that every professional journalist says Clinton won. And all the polls say Obama won. Now, who do you think is actually going to decide this election?

Posted by nun chuck | July 24, 2007 9:44 AM