CE Week #12: “Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers”
Last night was a tale of two debates.
The first 15 minutes of the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas featured clashes between the top three candidates — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — over Social Security, Iran and telling the truth.
The next hour and 45 minutes were, well, slower. All seven candidates got into the act, offering bits of their stump speeches and trying to cajole CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer into giving them a little more speaking time.
Anyone who reads the Fix regularly (Fixistas unite!) knows which part of the debate we liked better.
Below you’ll find the night’s winners and losers (according to The Fix). Ranking the candidates’ performances is an inherently subjective exercise so remember this is just one man’s opinion. Disagree? Or — fingers crossed — agree? Sound off in the comments section.
WINNERS
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Clinton’s performance in tonight’s debate will quiet (if not totally silence) talk that her campaign is struggling. Clinton set the tone early on by pushing back aggressively against Obama and Edwards and, in our mind, got the best of both exchanges. She was clearly aided by a sympathetic crowd who decided early on that they weren’t interested in watching the candidates fight. As a result, Clinton largely got a pass on her three biggest weaknesses: her equivocation on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, her vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and her vote in favor of the 2002 use of force resolution against Iraq. On a question about playing the gender card — another potential problem area — Clinton was clearly prepared and delivered her line of the night: “People are not attacking me because I am a woman, they are attacking me because I am ahead.”
Barack Obama: Yes, we know he fumbled the same question (driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants) that Clinton muffed in the last debate. And, yes, of course he should have known that sort of question was coming and been better prepared to answer it cleanly. But, put that flub aside and Obama offered himself as a credible and — more importantly — safe alternative to Clinton in last night’s debate. The first 15 minutes were dominated by a back and forth between him and Clinton (a good thing for a campaign trying to turn this into a two-person race) and for much of the rest of the debate Obama offered his “we can do more” vision succinctly and forcefully. “Don’t keep on assuming we can’t do something,” Obama scolded Blitzer at one point. “I am running for president because I think we can do it.”
Joe Biden: We can’t help it, we like the guy. Biden is regularly the life of these debates — launching self deprecating one-liners one minute and riffing on how he was introducing legislation before some of the candidates on the stage were even born the next. Biden is at his best when talking foreign policy and he got plenty of opportunities to do that last night. He spoke eloquently about the dangers posed by Iran and scored points on Pakistan by noting that he had spoken to both President Pervez Musharraf and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto before President Bush had.
LOSERS
John Edwards: For those pushing the idea that Clinton’s decision to directly respond to Edwards was a sign that the race is now officially a three-way contest, we say hogwash. Clinton effectively shot Edwards down in their first exchange and when Edwards tried to again go at Clinton later in the debate he was all but booed down by the audience. Make no mistake: Edwards is an able debater who clearly knows what he believes and says it. But, for most of last night’s debate it felt as though he were extraneous to the proceedings and when he did get his speaking time he seemed slightly too keyed up for the audience.
Chris Dodd: Despite his new haircut (we like it), Dodd had trouble standing out. His best moment was his impromptu Spanish outburst — he was in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic, he helpfully added — but it wasn’t enough to truly get him noticed. Dodd’s problem in the debates is symptomatic of his larger problem in the race: he doesn’t fit any niche. And, without a niche, he winds up falling through the cracks (humor us; it’s been a long week.)
Debate Fairness Complaints: Going into these events, everyone knows the deal: the candidates at the top of state and national polls are going to get the most questions directed at them and the majority of the speaking time. If you aren’t in that top tier, you have to find your own way to stand out (see Biden, Joe). Politics ain’t beanbag.
By Chris Cillizza | November 16, 2007; 8:00 AM ET | Category: Eye on 2008
Previous: Hillary Hits Back | Next: The Line: Even for Senate GOP, Every Cloud Has a Silver Lining Main Index –>
This is just one guy’s opinion and I am not about to disagree with it because I did not watch the debate but, there are a few things I wanted to comment on. I really don’t understand how in the world Obama can win if Hillary was a winner as well. We are at the point where Hillary is so far ahead that its not about him getting more voters its about her losing them. And if she looked good that in no way can be a good thing for Obama.
On Edwards, I think that he is indeed a very skillful debater. His aggressiveness however is really not good for him however. Yes he should go for the front runner but, he should keep in mind that she is indeed the front runner. Being too aggressive could do the opposite of what he wants which is for the Democrats to win in ‘08.
I think it makes sense that the front runners get asked more questions. What I would really like to see is some of the front runners agreeing to a one on one debate. It would show they really have some character and not just canned answers for the press.
Although I personally did not watch this particular debate the article was pretty good in describing what happened. I think a lot of people expected the top 3 to be going at it. I don’t really understand why Hillary got the big winner of the night when all she did was defend herself from the attacks that the other candidates were using. She still struggled on the issues. Obama appeared to do fairly well even though it fumbled the same question hillary did. Obama’s campaign is strengthening because he is making it a two horse race with edwards just helping to bring down hillary. The big surprise was Biden cracking the winner board. Biden seems to be pretty strong on a lot of the issues it just doesn’t seem that he gets a lot of the media attention when compared to the other candidates. He could make an interesting VP or at least throw some support when he does drop out of the race.
I am pleased to see that Hillary won the debate. I never thought that her campaign was struggling at all, but now it seems no one will. She sounds like she really knows how to debate. She set the tone early which is good. The crowed to me seems like it really doesn’t make that much of a difference. I guess in Hillary Clintons case it does. I really agree with the statement she made that night saying “People are not attacking me because I am a woman, they are attacking me because I am ahead.” Was it Obama that was giving some crap to Hillary on the same question that He missed. Am I the only one that sees the irony in that? He might sway a few votes if he continues to be a save alternative to Hillary Clinton. If he wants to win he will have to step it up a notch. I believe that in 2012 or 2016 he could really rival Hillary or anyone else from either the Democrats or the Republicans. I just feel at this point that he could use a little more time in Congress before he makes another large run for President. The losers lost and the winners won. Is it any surprise that Clinton and Obama are on top?