The Las Vegas debate: When the crowd takes care of silencing candidates
Tonight's debate was much more subdued than the Philadelphia showdown of October 30th. Much of the storyline since then had been about Hillary's slippage, and Clinton's opponents came out swinging early to try and replicate what happened in Philadelphia. But Hillary Clinton was prepared, and she shot back at them for the first time from the get-go. Taken aback, the rest of the Democratic field let Hillary off the hook for the rest of the debate. And just for that, Sen. Clinton has to be considered tonight's winner.
The first fifteen minutes
CNN was clearly aiming to have a replay of Philadelphia as it started off by asking Hillary Clinton how she would respond to criticism of her that she avoids taking positions and practices double-talk. Barack Obama attempted to step up his criticism of the New York Senator, but Hillary had had enough. For the first time in these debates, she went after Obama full force, attacking his health care plan for leaving millions uninsured: "When it came time to step up and decide whether he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that." (Notice how Hillary changed the subject from process, where she believes Obama has the advantage, to substance. Ultimately, the Clinton campaign believes that's where the election will be won; the Obama camp disagrees.) Obama charged back but he was clearly thrown off balance as he was not expecting the discussion to switch topics and Clinton to turn the table on him.
John Edwards then launched his usual speech associating Hillary with the rigged establishment, but Clinton went after him full force. "We need to have a positive agenda for America," she exclaimed: "When someone starts throwing mud we can at least hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook." Hillary Clinton had clearly planned this dual offensive against Obama and Edwards, as she came out with them as soon as the debate started and was very crisp in her answers.
As a result, the tone of the debate quickly shifted away from confrontation, as Obama did not come back to an offensive tone until almost the end. Given that it was the common fire from the rest of the crowd that had pushed Clinton to the unforced errors of the Philadelphia debate, this allowed her to not stumble this time and reassert her dominance against the field.
Boos from the crowd
The crowd did its part to help Hillary Clinton. Frequently interrupting all candidates with nourished applause, the large public recoiled from any attack between the candidate. John Edwards was the first to experience this when he criticized Clinton for flip-flopping and taking two positions on an issue at the same time; the crowd started booing him. The same thing happened a few times in the rest of the debate. The crowd got the loudest towards the end when Barack Obama attempted an offensive against Hillary Clinton's vagueness on Social Security. This is what we expect from Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, he charged, as the crowd renewed its boisterous disapproval.
It is not easy for any candidate to charge on in a debate under such circumstances, so it should come to no surprise that Edwards and Obama toned down their rhetoric when they realized the reaction any negative statement on Clinton would draw from the public. After all, the segments would likely be replayed in clips in news broadcast and on YouTube -- and the boos would certainly make a bad impression on them, helping Clinton make the argument that she was unfairly attacked.
Immigration
The most remarkable exchange of the night came over immigration. Wolf Blitzer predictably concentrated on the issue that had tripped up Hillary last time around: driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. But he focused his questions on Barack Obama. Asked whether he supports such plans, Obama gave an answer that looked strikingly similar to the one Clinton gave two weeks ago in Philadelphia -- which is truly shocking given that we would expect every candidate to have rehearsed an answer to this question. The Obama answer took so long to come out that many live-blogging websites posted the entire transcript of the exchange.
The Obama camp is saying that the candidate's position was consistent, albeit confusedly expressed -- and it probably was indeed. But so was Clinton's in Philadelphia. Take Obama's "I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety...and that driver's license at the state level can make that happen," which Obama delivered without saying that he was in favor such driver's licenses. This is pretty much the answer Clinton had given in Philadelphia (I support the idea, but I refuse to endorse the plan).
Wolf Blitzer kept pushing for theatrics and pressing Obama for a "yes or no" answer, forcing Obama to dig himself further in a hole. For there is really no way to answer this question: the President will have nothing to do with this issue, so it is absurd to expect the candidates to say they will introduce it or endorse the plan. But to be fair, Obama and Edwards both blasted Clinton two weeks ago for failing answering "yes and no" to a "yes or no" question, so it would be very hypocritical for them to complain today.
Hillary, on the other, got a pass from Wolf Blitzer -- which was quite as stunning as his pressing Obama for an answer! Clinton had come out with a new final position on the issue only yesterday -- opposing the now-defunct Spitzer plan -- and Blitzer let get away with answering just "no" to the same question he asked the other candidates. And in no doubt the best answer of the field, Dennis Kucinich answered, "I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren't any illegal human beings."
The rest of the night
Besides the initial ten minutes, the Mitt Romney comparison and the immigration dialogue, Barack Obama looked very solid. He made his points clearly, looked strong on substance, and managed to criticize Clinton on Iran and Iraq without seeming to direct -- trouble is that Clinton is still the front-runner and her challengers need more than this to topple her.
Obama did manage to make this race into a two-way showdown, helped by the candidates' positioning as he and Hillary were next to each other, far from Edwards. First Read reports on how much speaking time each candidate got: Obama (18:22) and Clinton (17:28) are far ahead from the rest of the pack, especially from Edwards (10:43). By contrast, and in blatant unequal treatment, Dodd only spoke 6:34...
Edwards was weaker as he really seemed to go too far in attacking Clinton in the first half of the debate, especially when he asked "Is that a planted question?" at the first opportunity he got, making it clear that he had prepared that shot and was waiting to use it. He was sharp when things turned to Iran; after all, he is the only one of the Top Three to have a consistent record of opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (Clinton did not vote it, Obama did not vote at all... which he acknowledged was a mistake).
Joe Biden got a lot of time tonight, and he seemed to deliver one-liner after one-liner. Ultimately all his answers revolved to Biden's accomplishments in the Senate, which is not a message that is likely to resonate with voters, but his wit definitely kept him in people's mind. Bill Richardson was also better than usual, especially in the second half as he seemed more at ease and more natural. His refusal to think ahead to the general election and accept the national security/human rights antithesis posed by Wolf Blitzer was certainly refreshing.
Dennis Kucinich took swipes at John Edwards in particular for his support of the China trade bill and distanced himself from the rest of the field by denouncing their support for the war, for the Patriot Act ("I'm the only one who read it," he said), and for NAFTA. Chris Dodd, finally, proves that he is a strong speaker, and that his main campaign issue is the rehabilitation of the Constitution -- I personally find his debating style very appealing and convincing, and am regularly disappointing that Dodd does not get more face time.
The first fifteen minutes
CNN was clearly aiming to have a replay of Philadelphia as it started off by asking Hillary Clinton how she would respond to criticism of her that she avoids taking positions and practices double-talk. Barack Obama attempted to step up his criticism of the New York Senator, but Hillary had had enough. For the first time in these debates, she went after Obama full force, attacking his health care plan for leaving millions uninsured: "When it came time to step up and decide whether he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that." (Notice how Hillary changed the subject from process, where she believes Obama has the advantage, to substance. Ultimately, the Clinton campaign believes that's where the election will be won; the Obama camp disagrees.) Obama charged back but he was clearly thrown off balance as he was not expecting the discussion to switch topics and Clinton to turn the table on him.
John Edwards then launched his usual speech associating Hillary with the rigged establishment, but Clinton went after him full force. "We need to have a positive agenda for America," she exclaimed: "When someone starts throwing mud we can at least hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook." Hillary Clinton had clearly planned this dual offensive against Obama and Edwards, as she came out with them as soon as the debate started and was very crisp in her answers.
As a result, the tone of the debate quickly shifted away from confrontation, as Obama did not come back to an offensive tone until almost the end. Given that it was the common fire from the rest of the crowd that had pushed Clinton to the unforced errors of the Philadelphia debate, this allowed her to not stumble this time and reassert her dominance against the field.
Boos from the crowd
The crowd did its part to help Hillary Clinton. Frequently interrupting all candidates with nourished applause, the large public recoiled from any attack between the candidate. John Edwards was the first to experience this when he criticized Clinton for flip-flopping and taking two positions on an issue at the same time; the crowd started booing him. The same thing happened a few times in the rest of the debate. The crowd got the loudest towards the end when Barack Obama attempted an offensive against Hillary Clinton's vagueness on Social Security. This is what we expect from Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, he charged, as the crowd renewed its boisterous disapproval.
It is not easy for any candidate to charge on in a debate under such circumstances, so it should come to no surprise that Edwards and Obama toned down their rhetoric when they realized the reaction any negative statement on Clinton would draw from the public. After all, the segments would likely be replayed in clips in news broadcast and on YouTube -- and the boos would certainly make a bad impression on them, helping Clinton make the argument that she was unfairly attacked.
Immigration
The most remarkable exchange of the night came over immigration. Wolf Blitzer predictably concentrated on the issue that had tripped up Hillary last time around: driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. But he focused his questions on Barack Obama. Asked whether he supports such plans, Obama gave an answer that looked strikingly similar to the one Clinton gave two weeks ago in Philadelphia -- which is truly shocking given that we would expect every candidate to have rehearsed an answer to this question. The Obama answer took so long to come out that many live-blogging websites posted the entire transcript of the exchange.
The Obama camp is saying that the candidate's position was consistent, albeit confusedly expressed -- and it probably was indeed. But so was Clinton's in Philadelphia. Take Obama's "I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety...and that driver's license at the state level can make that happen," which Obama delivered without saying that he was in favor such driver's licenses. This is pretty much the answer Clinton had given in Philadelphia (I support the idea, but I refuse to endorse the plan).
Wolf Blitzer kept pushing for theatrics and pressing Obama for a "yes or no" answer, forcing Obama to dig himself further in a hole. For there is really no way to answer this question: the President will have nothing to do with this issue, so it is absurd to expect the candidates to say they will introduce it or endorse the plan. But to be fair, Obama and Edwards both blasted Clinton two weeks ago for failing answering "yes and no" to a "yes or no" question, so it would be very hypocritical for them to complain today.
Hillary, on the other, got a pass from Wolf Blitzer -- which was quite as stunning as his pressing Obama for an answer! Clinton had come out with a new final position on the issue only yesterday -- opposing the now-defunct Spitzer plan -- and Blitzer let get away with answering just "no" to the same question he asked the other candidates. And in no doubt the best answer of the field, Dennis Kucinich answered, "I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren't any illegal human beings."
The rest of the night
Besides the initial ten minutes, the Mitt Romney comparison and the immigration dialogue, Barack Obama looked very solid. He made his points clearly, looked strong on substance, and managed to criticize Clinton on Iran and Iraq without seeming to direct -- trouble is that Clinton is still the front-runner and her challengers need more than this to topple her.
Obama did manage to make this race into a two-way showdown, helped by the candidates' positioning as he and Hillary were next to each other, far from Edwards. First Read reports on how much speaking time each candidate got: Obama (18:22) and Clinton (17:28) are far ahead from the rest of the pack, especially from Edwards (10:43). By contrast, and in blatant unequal treatment, Dodd only spoke 6:34...
Edwards was weaker as he really seemed to go too far in attacking Clinton in the first half of the debate, especially when he asked "Is that a planted question?" at the first opportunity he got, making it clear that he had prepared that shot and was waiting to use it. He was sharp when things turned to Iran; after all, he is the only one of the Top Three to have a consistent record of opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (Clinton did not vote it, Obama did not vote at all... which he acknowledged was a mistake).
Joe Biden got a lot of time tonight, and he seemed to deliver one-liner after one-liner. Ultimately all his answers revolved to Biden's accomplishments in the Senate, which is not a message that is likely to resonate with voters, but his wit definitely kept him in people's mind. Bill Richardson was also better than usual, especially in the second half as he seemed more at ease and more natural. His refusal to think ahead to the general election and accept the national security/human rights antithesis posed by Wolf Blitzer was certainly refreshing.
Dennis Kucinich took swipes at John Edwards in particular for his support of the China trade bill and distanced himself from the rest of the field by denouncing their support for the war, for the Patriot Act ("I'm the only one who read it," he said), and for NAFTA. Chris Dodd, finally, proves that he is a strong speaker, and that his main campaign issue is the rehabilitation of the Constitution -- I personally find his debating style very appealing and convincing, and am regularly disappointing that Dodd does not get more face time.
Labels: Debate
posted by Taniel at
11:12 PM
2 Comments:
The debate was a mess. Blitzer is beyond incompetence - he should be doing infomercials - and the other two don't deserve a posting in the drive-time helicopter. And who allowed the audience to behave like it was at a WWF event? You'd never get this sort of obnoxious behavior from an Iowa or NH audience. They're there to listen, not to become part of the show or drive up the response meter for their candidate. This is important business.
On the merits, or lack of same, there's a common thread in this and other instant analysis of these debates. The candidates are scored on gotcha points, not the merits of what they're saying. This isn't high school, folks - we've got more serious things to do than wonder at HRC's ability to deliver a well-coached line that her staff cooked up for her, or Obama's momentary obscurity on the drivers license issue. BTW, how did that become a federal concern?
Stripping away extraneous considerations, HRC is the same cautious centrist she's been all along. I wish someone would drill her on her supposed 'experience', but every time that happens, her staff whines about 'piling on'. When it comes to the gender card, she still slides away from the response, and Blitzer (or whoever was hiding inside that clown costume) refused to press her.
Let's get these sideshows out of the way, and get back to in-depth discussion of important policy choices. If we want to see a candidate cross-examined, let's put them on the news shows where someone with half a brain can press their thumbs on inconsistencies without this sort of nonsense.
A wasted evening.....
By
Otis Foster, At
16 November, 2007 02:34
I agree with you about Dodd making a good impression. He came across as very clear and sincere.
Unfortunately, at this point I'm not sure it'll matter. Still, just by getting noticed he probably benefited from the debate.
By
Anonymous, At
16 November, 2007 09:13
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home