Dem Debate Wrap-Up

The usual pattern of these things, in my view, is that John Edwards has done the best, and Hillary Clinton has done what she needed to do to consolidate her position as front-runner. With fewer candidates in the field, I thought the debate became much more watchable and the same basic pattern held up -- Edwards is running as a strong progressive, has a strong message, and in this format has enormous charisma. Clinton doesn't wow you, but she takes care of business. Barack Obama is clearly not at his best in this format -- he delivers great setpiece speeches and is very appealing in a small group, but doesn't quite seem sure of his tone when seated around the table.

The difference, though, is that Hillary Clinton's not the front-runner anymore in the kind of way she used to be. She wanted to use tonight to cut her opponents down to size, but while she had good answers to questions she didn't have any devastating attacks. Edwards will have done himself a lot of good if a lot of New Hampshirites stayed in tonight and watched, but presumably the press will just move back to ignoring him. Obama, now, seems to me to be the guy who did what he needed to do delivering a competent performance and not letting his main rival draw any meaningful blood.

Comments

We need a Celts thread

Posted by Andruw | January 5, 2008 10:50 PM

I like Obama, so it pains me to disagree. I think most NH voters probably didn't watch, and so clips will primarily drive the impact of this debate--limiting the usefulness of Obama's sober performance.

And my guess is that we'll be talking about a throwaway moment tomorrow; specifically, when Obama told Hillary "you're likeable enough." Everyone's going to have a great time getting him to explain the meaning of 'enough.' So my guess is that he hurt himself.

Posted by southpaw | January 5, 2008 10:51 PM

Clinton is still the front-runner? Have you been following the news this week?

Obama wins in NH, he's the easy frontrunner then.

At this point, at best she is one of the two frontrunners.

Posted by hopeless pedant | January 5, 2008 10:54 PM

Senator Clinton: We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered

Translation: Americans aren't going to tell me what to do

Posted by hlah | January 5, 2008 10:58 PM

Obama missed a big opportunity to refute Hillary's "35 years of experience in making change" --especially after her dig at his health care efforts.

Obama should have pointed out that the Democrats controlled the Presidency AND the Congress in 1992-94 -- and that not only did Hillary's 1994 Health Care initiative collapse into a debacle, it helped give Republicans control of Congress for the next 12 years.

Posted by Don Williams | January 5, 2008 11:03 PM

Forgive my tone, but this post is like all those media narratives that are simply updated to reflect the proper dates and names, i.e., Edwards was great like always, Hillary was passable, and Obama not so great. I don't think there was a clear winner, or that anyone made egregious errors, but there remained moments that illustrated fundamental differences between the candidates that didn't rely on a press-quote from one of their surrogates.

Take for instance the exchange between Edwards and Hillary regarding, essentially, "change." Both gave spirited responses--Edwards, his stump speech, and Hillary, that change requires more than rhetoric--that were hardly inconsequential.

Back to the playoffs.

Posted by nvs | January 5, 2008 11:08 PM

And if we're talking about "35 Years of Experience in Making Change", let's remember that it was the immaturity of the Clinton marriage that locked up the US government from 1998-2000, gave Bin Laden the time to pull off 911, and gave
Bush-Cheney control of the White House the last 8 years.

The Democratic Base are the ones who have suffered deeply from the irresponsibility of the Lewinsky affair.

Posted by Don Williams | January 5, 2008 11:08 PM

Obama clearly won the debate - he stayed out of the fray, delivered prescient answers, and appeared much more confident than in previous debates.

It also helped that both Edwards and Richardson were supportive of him at varying times.

Obama will win this primary by at least half a dozen points.

Posted by Andy | January 5, 2008 11:09 PM

The NY Times blog has the exchange where Edwards kneecapped Hillary:

------------
Then she [Hillary] switches tactics, saying that two weeks ago, Mr. Obama had said Mr. Edwards was unelectable because he had changed positions. “You’ve changed positions within three years on a range of issues,” ....

Mr. Obama said he never said that Mr. Edwards was unelectable.

Mr. Edwards is amused: “I didn’t hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead.”

Mr. Richardson inserts: “I’ve been in hostage negotiations that are more civil than this.”

Mrs. Clinton shouldn’t count on Mr. Edwards or Mr. Richardson joining her in beating up on Mr. Obama.

Posted by Don Williams | January 5, 2008 11:15 PM

Obama should also have responded to Hillary's "35 years of experience" by noting that young people of this country are getting $10 TRILLION in debt and HUGE problems.

This election is about the People, not the candidates.

And this country can't AFFORD Hillary's self-centered , selfish "It's ALL about ME!" Baby-Boomer behavior any more.

Edwards, to his great credit, gets that.

Posted by Don Williams | January 5, 2008 11:23 PM

Why didn't anyone directly point out that for all Clinton's talk about change, she was only one who had the opportunity to effect change on a grand scale and she failed at it. Where does she get off talking being an effective agent for change? She belittled Edwards work on the Patients Bill of Rights, but what legislative accomplishments does she have? Why can't she point to specific changes that she's engineered? The balanced budget? Give me a break. For all Edwards talk about special interests money, why didn't he point out exactly how much money Hillary has accepted from drug companies? Why doesn't anyone hold Hillary accountable for her record?

Posted by Just Karl | January 5, 2008 11:25 PM

Why do political bloggers think it is so cool to be aloof regarding the debates? This is all Matt comes up with after the best Dem debate so far? And Sullivan decided to 'get a life' instead provide further comment.

People who read political blogs are interested in this shit, stop acting like hipsters and get writing.

Posted by Tom Enever | January 5, 2008 11:27 PM

Was Hillary "fighting for change" for 35 years when she was a corporate lawyer arguing for rat's a**es in canned foods? WTF?

Posted by El Cid | January 5, 2008 11:31 PM

What Matthew said.

Posted by Petey | January 5, 2008 11:35 PM

I remember that after the 1992 election, before the inauguaration, perhaps in one the year end news pieces, there was a great video that one of the networks did.

It lasted a long time for what it was, about 5 minutes. All it was was sound clips from the year of presidential campaign participants saying "change." Mostly it was clips of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, because they said it the most. It was hilarious, because everyone was sick of hearing the word.

Would be great if someone could dig it up. I think the record count on candidates saying "change" this time has alread gone way past the 92 count.

Posted by artappraiser | January 5, 2008 11:39 PM

These guys can barely find anything to disagree about on policy anymore. They seemed prepared to talk about the few things they do disagree about, but the moderators didn't see to want to get into any of that stuff, and focussed on more abstract issues about youth vs. experience and the "theory of change", resulting in another bore of a debate. They all looked to be dragging with the late start time and long hours they've been putting in. The format felt more informal and collegial with only four candidates on stage. Not much happened that was comment-worthy.

Edwards puzzles me a bit. He just seems to say he is going to do pretty the same things as the other guys, but he is going to do it with a lot of passion, and he emotes more. But I don't really get a mental picture of what kind of process he is talking about. He sounds like he is in a courtroom challenging Big Tobacco, or Mr. Smith going to Washington, but how that all connects with the job of the Presidency is left mysterious. I get Obama's and Clinton's message: Obama says he is going to be an inspiring national leader who knows how to build bridges and develop a broad governing coalition in support of big changes; Clinton says she is going to use her experience and no nonsense insider practicality and hard work to do the same things. But I don't get what Edwards is saying other than that, however he does it, he is going to "fight" for it, and he personally cares a lot about it.

Obama was very solid and professional, stayed on the high road, and did a good job avoiding getting dragged into traps and spats. I liked that he didn't run away from his earlier positions - Pakistan, Social Security and the mandate issue, for example. In each case he was ready to defend his positions, and did so well. It was a bit frustrating that the moderators kept allowing things to be steered away from policy and into the more personal and abstract issues. It seemed to me that the country was owed a much more extensive discussion of Pakistan, Iraq, energy costs and the whole Middle East conundrum. And the candidates to their credit were ready to get into it, but the moderators let it fizzle out.

Clinton looked tired, listless and frustrated at the outset, but after she lost her temper at the Edwards comment, she seemed to get a little shot adrenaline and returned to normal.

A high point of the debate for me was when all of the candidates forgot their rivalry and answered in almost total agreement on the surge question, staking out a clear Democratic alternative.

Just one note on big media cluelessness. My wife happens to be a popular tenured professor at St. Anselm College, and our salaries are virtually identical - and I can tell you that we don't make close to $200,000.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 5, 2008 11:51 PM

Obama was fine and made some good points especially about being where we were 2 yrs ago in iraq (no progress, but lots of lost lives and wasted money); Edwards is getting his point across now about fighting for the middle class (i don't know why he didn't start pounding the table more than a week before the iowa caucus?); Hillary does well in this type of debate setting and even showed some personality ("you hurt my feelings!") and fire (defending against the status quo attack)...

if NH voters were looking for a reason to move to Obama, then i think they'll have found it; if they were looking for a reason to stick with Hillary, then she gave it to them...

either the iowa momentum thing will really work for Obama, or NH voters will tell iowa to go "suck an egg" as they vote for Hillary... my guess is that Edwards finishes a clear third even if he did well in tonight's debate...

Posted by NotFeelingObamaSoMuch | January 5, 2008 11:51 PM

Hillary was hitting Obama hard, and he wasn't really given the chance to address her attacks (read Ambinder on this). She did it well, I think, in not seeming "mean", but was strong and persistent.

That said, where he shines is what he DIDN'T do. He didn't get angry, and he appeared calm amidst it. While it could just be tiredness, that suited the event well enough.

Posted by Vaughan | January 5, 2008 11:52 PM

Doesn't matter. Charlie '$100k is a middle-class wage' Gibson and company have already decided that McCain-Obama is the only acceptable matchup, and the editing suites are hard at work to make this so.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 12:01 AM

Having spent the day canvassing in NH, I know a great many undecideds and leaning voters were planning to watch tonight's debate. It will probably have a great deal of influence on the race, nearly as much as Iowa, who NH voters sort of resent.

I definitely think Edwards helped himself. Defending Oama let him get away with hitting Hillary unusually hard, but it seems OK 'cause he's just sticking up for his buddy. He was on message too, especially defending the middle class in the second half.

Hillary did get in a shot or two at Obama, but not enough to shake off any of his supporters.

Posted by AJ | January 6, 2008 12:03 AM

i do agree with Dan (above) about Edwards being puzzling. he jumped in to make a big point about being "ready on day one", but ended up talking about not letting any lobbyists into his administration. while that is all fine and good it doesn't really make a case for being "ready on day one."

also, not to be too whiny here, but i think Obama is at his best when he is inspiring people with his words rather than explaining how he is going to be an inspirational president. i don't think that JFK (our last truly inspirational president even if matt thinks that he lacked any real accomplishments) ever spoke publicly about how he was the best guy to inspire the american public with his words. Obama needs to let the pundits drive home that point and not sell his own strength by explaining it.

Posted by NotFeelingObamaSoMuch | January 6, 2008 12:04 AM

Just one note on big media cluelessness. My wife happens to be a popular tenured professor at St. Anselm College, and our salaries are virtually identical - and I can tell you that we don't make close to $200,000.

When you're on $7m+ a year, like Charlie G., $100k is what the peons who book your lunches earn.

(Atrios's commenters perhaps glossed: Charlie went to Princeton, and a tenured professor of an endowed chair may earn $100k. But still, that was a Bush/scanner moment for elite media.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 12:05 AM

Pseudo- Isn't there some sort of separation of powers issue with McCain being President since he already controls the Fourth Estate?

Posted by AJ | January 6, 2008 12:06 AM

In the biggest urban cities, $100k/year is clearly middle class. Maybe not in the sticks, but you definitely ain't upper class making $100k/year in NYC, LA or San Francisco. The cost of living is such that you are struggling.

Posted by TheCarpetMuncher | January 6, 2008 12:15 AM

"In the biggest urban cities, $100k/year is clearly middle class. Maybe not in the sticks, but you definitely ain't upper class making $100k/year in NYC, LA or San Francisco. The cost of living is such that you are struggling."

That's just not true. I live well in Brooklyn making 32,000. Get out of your bubble.

Posted by mad6798j | January 6, 2008 12:23 AM

"Defending Obama let him get away with hitting Hillary unusually hard"

It was a fucking amazing maneuver.

The reappearance of the alliance in full force (the way it had been during the summer) was a total bombshell.

I normally think Schaller is an idiot, but he got this one right:

Wow.

Get your kids out and put them in front of the TV: The Clinton Era officially ended at 9:34 p.m. EST when Edwards paired with Obama to bury Hillary as a non-agent of change.

Wow, again.

Posted by Petey | January 6, 2008 12:26 AM

While $100,000 may not be the average definition of "working class," it sure isn't "upper class", not if you're aware of just how freakishly wealthy the U.S. upper classes actually are. An awful lot of moderately wealthy people make the mistake of thinking that they are among the actual upper classes of the U.S. because there's an identifiable social and consumer chasm between them and the less wealthy. But they sure aren't the multi-generational centi-millionaires and billionaires who influence entire national and international policies. Estate tax, anyone?

Posted by El Cid | January 6, 2008 12:56 AM

I loved the exchange on health care, the meaning and mechanics of change, and the value of experience. All debaters seems to arch their spine and give their best effort, and you can see that the framing seems more advanced than in past debates. It almost seems like we've set up the next debate with this one.

For instance, I thought Obama and Edwards initially were very strong in rebutting Hillary's canned attack on Obama, and it seemed like Hillary was going to go down in flames on that one, but then she came back forcefully about her experience of actually creating change and was very, very convincing in doing so, even if I don't really accept that she has done enough.

Hillary almost seemed mad, and I really thought she reversed that well, not so that she won the exchange, but so that she didn't look really bad, and along those lines Bill Richardson really helped her with his canned joke and then paean to the value of experience in creating change.

Edwards and Obama both closed out the exchange with excellent framing on their own right, so I must say that I am very impressed with the candidates and their performance tonight, especially since I stumbled upon the debate on accident after the game and wasn't expecting much.

As I said, I really thought that some ground was broken in today's debate that should be fruitfully followed up in future debates. As good as that exchange was on health care, change and experience, it was really only a prelude to the real discussion and debate, since we talked a lot about how there were differences, but didn't really explore them more than brief allusions and aggressive framing.

Also, I thought Obama hit a home run with the "transparency and accountability" framing, since he had just lost a little momentum, and that's the most important vector of change we have available, at least in my eyes, in terms of ensuring responsive and responsible government.

Edwards also was excellent immediately before that in emphasizing that some change is not possible without going to battle with the most aggressive, well-financed, entrenched special interests that have no incentive to change, or only want change that is beneficial for them, and who want the government and its resources to be responsive to them, more than to the American people as both Edwards and Obama pointed out.

Posted by Jimm | January 6, 2008 12:56 AM

To reiterate, I only have seen the one exchange on health care, change, experience and leadership, which I just described, but came away very impressed with all 4 candidates, and though I gave shorter shrift to Bill Richardson in the above account, he was outperformed by noone, getting laughs from the audience and doing a great job of emphasizing the broader spectrum of concerns we have, which he started to do in the nuclear terrorism exchange (which I did see, now that I think about it), and then continued by reemphasizing clean energy, the environment, and working with people and other governments in a proactive way, not just against them in a reactionary way.

Posted by Jimm | January 6, 2008 1:00 AM

The upper quintile of household income, generally referred to as "upper class," begins at $88,030. National median household income is $44,389 (both from the Census Bureau 2005) If your household is earning $100K you are doing better than 84% of all other households in America no matter where you live.

Posted by stats | January 6, 2008 1:27 AM

According to Wikipedia,

40% of Americans live in the top 20 metro areas, yet households making $167,000 are in the top 5% of income earners. More than $250,000 puts your house in the top 1.5% of American households.

The middle 33% of American households earn $30,000-$62,500 per year.

Three things everyone believes of themselves: they are middle class, they have a sense of humor, they are a good driver.

Posted by Just Karl | January 6, 2008 1:40 AM

There is a big difference between middle class in say Iowa and say California.

To pretend that there isn't is willful blindness.

In New Hampshire, you can buy a starter home for $200,000. A smaller home in Los Angeles costs upwards of $550,000.

Under the middle class definitions above, not a single person in the middle class would be able to afford a home in Los Angeles.

Clearly things are different in different places.

Posted by TheCarpetMuncher | January 6, 2008 2:27 AM

Poor, lower middle, middle, upper middle and upper class are all based on which quintile a household falls in. It is statistical not anecdotal.
(even in academic models of class that are more sociological, $100K puts individuals in the upper middle class)

If you want to discuss whether someone can have a better lifestyle making $100K living in West LA or earning $44K while residing in Des Moines then by all means do. It is ridiculous to state that $100K is middle class, however, when clearly it is not. The economic definition of "middle class" is either tied to the national household income quintiles or it is almost entirely meaningless.

PS - According to Money magazine (2006), median household income in the city of Los Angeles is $43,244.

Posted by stats | January 6, 2008 4:14 AM

This discussion largely serves to show the ridiculousness of dividing the current population of the USA into quintiles.

Yes, someone making $100k/year, regardless of where, is generally not struggling to find food or shelter. But to lump them in with billionaires is just plain silly. Their lives and lifestyles are from different planets.

Likewise in the bottom quintile. The "working poor" have very different lives and concerns from those who are completely destitute.

Designing policies around arbitrary statistical divisions like these misses some very significant differences at both ends of the scale.

Posted by Darren | January 6, 2008 5:45 AM

Darren's right. Class warfare ain't the answer to our problems. Concentrate on which policies create wealth for the majority, not on arbitrary dividing lines between upper middle and lower.

Posted by Bill | January 6, 2008 7:14 AM

Another Clintonista writing this one for sure. I was put off in the first two sentences. Pure drivel. Billary is tanking and I'm enjoying it. Go Obama!

Posted by Reid | January 6, 2008 9:24 AM

I think definitions of "class" vary greatly with the context in which they are being used.

When you're looking at social divisions or the general distributions of wealth, sure, people earning upwards of $100K or so are for those types of purposes among the most wealthy. (I would happily accept being among this group if I could, alas, not hardly.)

When you're looking for measurable mechanisms that economic upper classes use to influence national and international policies, such as the support of think tanks or creation of PAC's or control of major corporations larger than many national economies, and the generational influence of wealth, then that is a *completely* different type of "upper class" than the people with a few expensive cars, retirement plans, and a big house.

Posted by El Cid | January 6, 2008 10:25 AM

During the leadup to the primaries I have had a truly difficult time deciding between Senators Clinton or Obama (and ocassionally Edwards).

I admire Senator Clinton as an intelligent and competent individual, but I am unsure she can win the general election because so many people have negative preconceived notions (often unfair)about her.

For example, while last night I saw a strident defense of her record (someone who has brought legitimate change during her tenure in the Senate)against Edwards' accusations that she represents the "status quo," many other people saw that same defense as angry, shrill (sexism) or "vicious."

On the other hand, I find Barack Obama also to be intelligent, but, in addition, inspirational and someone who could quite possibly receive a mandate for change by bringing in new, young voters and by attracting independents and moderate Republicans.

So what's the problem? Last night when discussing his "record of change" he brought up the lobby reform legislation he co-sponsored which limited meals that could be bought for members of Congress. Charles Gibson countered that this rule only applied to meals when the candidate was sitting down. OBAMA SEEMED STUNNED (deer in the headlights). As if he never expected anyone to question him on the details of his "record of change." Unable to immediately respond, it was John Edwards who interjected to save him, while Obama got back on message. Combined with his low energy level last night, previous lackluster debate performances, and safe "protect your lead" strategic answering, I turned off the TV unenthused.

Obama inspires me but I would have preferred a more strident and forceful response like Hillary's. The Republican attack machine is going to hit Obama hard if he gets the nomination. The "attacks" he's received from Clinton are nothing compared to how he's going to be treated in the general election and I want assurances he can swing back and swing back hard.

After Thursday's Iowa speech (which brought me to tears)I had made up mind to support Obama, but after that last night's debate, I'm back on the fence.

Finally, I think Edwards won the debate and predict he will get a small bounce on Tuesday which may hurt Obama.

Posted by Paul | January 6, 2008 10:57 AM

Clearly things are different in different places.

And clearly, Charlie Gibson still thought that two professors at St Anslem's, a liberal-arts colege in NH, earned $200k between them.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 11:21 AM

Clearly things are different in different places.

And clearly, Charlie Gibson still thought that two professors at St Anselm's, a liberal-arts colege in NH, earned $200k between them.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 6, 2008 11:22 AM

Well, I do think Obama was caught off guard with the questioning of the ethics bill.

Primary Reason: That's the part of his stump speech where he tells the joke about the other Senator complaining about having to eat at McDonald's. Obama probably expected to just straight cruise through the talking point and the accompanying anecdote. Oh well, live and learn.

Posted by Abe | January 6, 2008 12:03 PM

Edwards did shine and despite the moronic cynics- maybe it'll help. Obama was risk-averse. Yeah, he could have lambasted Hillary for her myopic failures, but he calculated that adopting a serious mien would crown him with "Presidential" glory and I think he came out alright. Hillary? She wasn't bad, but good enough, "likeable enough" isn't going to do it. A more telling moment came afterward when Obama the mocha gazelle parted ways quickly with Hillary the anxious white homemaker. He's got youth, he's got game and unless he badly stumble...victory is in his grasp.

Posted by Trevor | January 6, 2008 3:21 PM

I was an Edwards person, now, not so much. Does he want to win or not? It would seem he is now working on getting a job in the Obama administration.

This is why Dems lose national elections.

Posted by jenn | January 7, 2008 8:51 AM

What about being the former first lady qualifies Hillary to now be the president? Why does Obama let Hillary run her campaign on a message of experience when she has no more experience than he does? The empress has no clothes.

I can't vote for Hillary, partly because of her obnoxious sense of entitlement but mostly because her foreign policy is almost indistinguishable from the President's.

Posted by Mike LePost | January 7, 2008 2:17 PM