I wasn't really watching after the first half hour or so, but it seemed to me that Edwards was doing a better job than Obama of landing blows on Clinton and that something about the dynamic of so many different candidates slamming HRC was weird. Weird in a way that helps her or weird in a way that hurts her I couldn't quite say. Insofar as people fear that Obama may not have the requisite instinct for the jugular, I don't think he was allaying that fear. On the other hand, if he wins Iowa does that prove he's a winner and suddenly put him neck-in-neck in the national race?
« Tortured Answers | Main | The Limits of "Diplomacy" »
Debate Quasi-Blogging
31 Oct 2007 12:57 am
Comments (27)
Was Richardson the fat guy?
Ignoring strikes me as a reasonable response to Richardson.
I didn't watch the whole thing because I quickly got tired of Obama disappointing me every time he opened his mouth -- he was just waffling, not doing much of anything to attack or draw sharp distinctions with either Hillary or the Republicans.
If he wants to exemplify a new, more honorable kind of politics, that's cool with me, but it needs to involve some more precise statements about what makes him different from other politicians. Right now he's just failing, and making me sad.
Edwards and Obama are playing a form of good cop / bad cop. Notice how they essentially took similar positions except that Edwards was unrestrained and Obama seemed reluctant to go too far. That may allow Obama to go after Clinton without turning off voters.
It's like late '03 early '04 all over again, where they were all ganging up on Howard Dean. It's the price of being the frontrunner.
The difference is that HRC is the establishment candidate so they're more reluctant to really hit her hard. Dean, by contrast, was the insurgent who didn't have many establishment endorsements, so it was easier to knock him.
The big story of the debate (minor win for HRC w/some cust) was Tim Russert acting like Rudy was whispering the questions in his ear - The debate was a GOP/Rudy win for that reason. Russert's framing and selection of questions made the Dems look weak and silly.
Hillary was pretty untouched, except by Russert and Edwards.
Obama continues to be a platitude-spouting, happy-talking empty suit. Why should he piss Hillary off if he hopes to be the 30-year reliable liberal activist, pro-abortion appointee to the Supreme Court. Knowing, as a Magic Negro, the MSM will jump onboard and make any resistance to him an "act of racism".
Obama actually helps Hillary because he has even less executive experience than she does and even less time in "The Club on the Hill". And no one can criticise his naivety and inexperience because if the Dems gave Sharpton a pass as a credible candidate due to skin color, they have to gloss over Obama's weak quals.
Shame Edwards wasn't more than a trial lawyer and a 1-term Senator. I like a lot of what he says in his 2 Americas basic speech.
Shame that the Democrats didn't find a governor to run - other than Richards - who is, unfortunately for him - duller and stupider than his resume` suggests.
Both Edwards and Obama were effective in their own ways. By the way, I understand that the people who actually watch debates and follow these campaigns on a daily basis live for clash, and will probably prefer Edwards's approach as a result. But it is not at all clear that is a better approach for attracting actual voters in, say, Iowa.
But as I noted over at Ambinder's blog as well, the big story to me is that it looks like the press is ready to turn on Clinton, with unknown consequences. But notably, the history for frontrunners when the press turns on them full force is not good, with Dean currently being the poster child on the Democratic side.
I really think there's not much advantage for either Edwards and Obama in directly attacking Clinton or any other Democrat. A forceful attack on the Republican frontrunner has much more upside potential, and both Obama and Edwards are better positioned than Clinton to go after Giuliani.
Southpaw is right. All candidates should be attacking Giuliani. This has upside for both the Democrats as a whole - making them look aggressive - and for the candidates who do attack Rudy by making him/her look like a fighter who can play a rough game and be successful at it.
In addition, attacking Republicans keeps them in good graces with Clinton, in case any of them hope to have a role in her administration or the SCOTUS.
Of course they'll turn on Clinton. The media is officially in it's parse-the-front-runner mode. The whole MSM and blog-world dissection will now be about everything Hillary does, every move she makes, every attack that is made on her - and they'll jump on each and every sign of weakness. She won't be able to take a dump without it being analyzed in terms of how it helps or hurts her candidacy. It is going to be excruciating but if she survives, as they say, she will be stronger for it. Don't expect to hear much about policy for the next three months - it will all be about how she holds up.
Couldn't agree more with notion that there is little for Dems to win in direct, rather weird and nasty gang-bang on Hillary. Makes her a victum, which makes her weak and less reassuring to voters, makes Edwards a sanctamoneous creep, makes Obama what he is: big talk, not much substance
.
Who wins? Russert and other Republications.
Congratulations to the Dems for yet another brilliant political strategy.
Knowing, as a Magic Negro, the MSM will jump onboard and make any resistance to him an "act of racism"...And no one can criticise his naivety and inexperience because if the Dems gave Sharpton a pass as a credible candidate due to skin color, they have to gloss over Obama's weak quals.
Oh Chris, you had me at "Magic Negro", you charming devil you!
But seriously, you do realize, don't you, that even in the Republican Party it's really not considered good form to be openly racist these days. Maybe you missed the memo...
... and that something about the dynamic of so many different candidates slamming HRC was weird.
The only thing weird about it is that it runs against the polite and finicky Democratic reverse-sexism that is discomfited by the spectacle of a bunch of guys ganging up to criticize a girl, and that is partly responsible for the gentle ride Clinton has received so far. In most debates this far into a campaign season, no one would think there was anything the slightest bit weird about all of the contenders teaming up to attack the front-runner.
Couldn't agree more with notion that there is little for Dems to win in direct, rather weird and nasty gang-bang on Hillary.
If they had all teamed up to attack, say, Joe Biden, would you call it a "gang-bang"? If not, I would suggest there is a double standard at work here.
For those of you who did not watch (or did not watch beyond the first half hour):
Obama, though he started very slow, did well for most of the debate. Particularly when discussing Clinton's "secrecy" problem, he did a good job of directly confronting her without going negative. He also got in a few very effective jokes at the end, such as when he turned Russert's really stupid question about UFO's into a domestic policy response.
Edwards was very sharp and did well short term. He scored the most direct hits against Clinton. I'd be concerned, though, that in the long term such continued attacks could be perceived as personal or overly negative - something that doesn't go over well with the Iowa crowd. The dynamic between Obama and Edwards is interesting. Someone (here? another blog?) likened it to "good cop/bad cop". I could picture a scenario where Edwards is the one who most effectively attacks Clinton and brings down her support, but Obama is the one who actually benefits from it.
Clinton started strong, fending off early attacks, but did not finish well. This was the first time she seemed rattled: not only did she take a confusing and seemingly contradictory position on drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, she actually got into an argument with Dodd on the matter. Plus, she did not answer many questions directly, and appeared to be using canned talking points for most of her responses.
As for the others, well, Richardson was horrible. I think his worst moment was his defense of Clinton. It seemed silly. First, none of the "attacks" were as bad as he portrayed them to be. Second, why on earth does Clinton need anyone defending her? She is a strong, capable woman who has chosen to enter a rough profession. I am, even if not a supporter, quite confident that she can take care of her self. There was something almost patronizing about Richardson's defense.
Biden got the best line of the night ("a subject, a verb, and 9/11"). Dodd seemed smart but zzzzzzzz. Kucinich saw a UFO, which is thoroughly unsurprising.
Back when Hillary was first running for Senate, I remember the Republican nominee got quite nasty with her during the debates, and general consensus was it hurt him, and hurt him badly. I think Hillary is quite capable of taking punches, but I can understand why the other Dems would be reluctant to throw them-- not just because she's a woman, but because the Republicans are attacking her so fiercely, and they don't want to be seen on any level as part of that crowd.
Rick Lazio made a fool of himself attack Hillary and invading her space in the 2000 Senate race - We knew that Hillary won the debate when we saw John Podhoretz column the next day congratulating Lazio.
Demagirl, we have to take issue with your " Biden got the best line of the night ("a subject, a verb, and 9/11"). "
Rudy would splat Biden like a rotten banana in any general election. Biden has generally been a patsy for the war ideologues anyway - He's toast and pretty soon will retire and end up semi-forgotten like Gephardt. Remember Gephardt jumping up and down calling Bush a "miserable failure?" Ofcourse Bush had the last laugh and now Gephardt is reduced to taking money from Turkey in exchange for denying the Armenian genocide..
if he wins Iowa does that prove he's a winner and suddenly put him neck-in-neck in the national race?
Yes.
This has been anoth--
Comment, are you implying that the Bush presidency has not, in fact, been a miserable failure?
Certainly not - but Gephardt came off poorly with his remarks - They struck unconvinced swing voters as disrespectful and tantrum-like. You have to make a case - you cannot just assert. Unless you are in power - then you can get away with asserting. Besides Gephardt voted for authorizing the war and he came accross as risibly naive or dishonest when he explained his vote.
It is disturbing on a number of levels that Dem audiences convince themselves that those slogans from Biden or Gephardt help. It saddens us that people think that - But it explains why Rudy might win even after a disasterous Bush admin with two losing wars and a bifurcated country.
Further - another reason Biden's remark was dumb was that it just reminded voters of 9-11 and the simple, if sad, fact that Rudy's simple slogan (simpliefied by Biden) is actually a popular slogan. Rudy was a forgotten man before 9-11 - he was screaming at ferret owners on the radio, he was involved in endless racial anatagonisms, he was giving the city away to his campaign contributors, he was sending the cops after political cartoonists and demonstrators that made fun of him. Then 9-11 happened - and he was re-made and his good first term was remembered and his bad second term (and attempt to seize power) was brushed aside. Even as recent as the 2000 GOP convention in Phili, Poppy Bush did not want to be seen with Rudy in photos. So you can bet he will sloganeer 9-11 and Biden just helped him.
Also - jokes that invoke grammar words like "noun" and "verb" are not popular with 'the folks.'
Edwards earned his money as a trial lawyer...of course he landed blows as that's his training...terse questioning.
Obama requires more thoughtfulness which would require the media to actually listen to what he's saying...seems a difficult task for today's *journalists* as it requires an attention span longer than a nanosecond.
Clinton cannot rely on being a woman to avoid questioning of her stances (or is that non-stances?). She's running for the most powerful position in the world and should do so on her own merits. I wonder if Thatcher or Golda Meir relied on being a *skirt* to protect her from hard core questioning?
Update - As we predicted, Rudy just whacked Poor Joe Biden already. He just reminded people of Joe's plagerism. Story over. Sad fact.
Though HRC would probably say she admires Golda, she probably has mixed feelings - Golda sat on her skirt and almost let the Egyptian army overrun the country - Then got bailed out by Nixon. Hillary is more in the mold Angela Merkel.
The candidates all ganged up on Dean, and some said it would reinforce his being the frontrunner and not hurt him...
Good cop/bad cop is exactly right. The dynamic is that Edwards hurts Clinton, folks in Iowa start to look around again, and maybe end up with Obama, who wasn't getting attacked, and didn't attack as hard himself.
So basically Edwards as Gephardt, Obama as Kerry/Edwards. None of the other candidates has any real potential to do anything in Iowa.
BTW, can we can the quips about Kucinich seeing a UFO? Jimmy Carter claimed he saw one, too, and he become President. Reagan, at his most bizarre, even talked about invasions from outer space, IIRC.
There's nothing absurd about claiming to have seen one, given the millions of people who have claimed that worldwide. Claiming to have been abducted by aliens would be grounds for questioning the claimant, however.
Kucinich handled it well, admitting that what he saw was unidentified, and joking that he was moving his campaign office to Roswell. He could have handled it better by asking what the incident had to do with US policy matters. At least he had the balls to admit he did see one - which is more than Hillary would have done.
Comments closed November 13, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I only saw the last hour, but I felt like Richardson was totally being ignored, maybe based on where he was positioned on the stage. It's like being named Zucker.
Posted by nbt | October 31, 2007 1:22 AM