Biden and Clinton Shine at Debate
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton shined in the presidential debate on Thursday night, as the leading Democratic candidates traded their sharpest barbs to date.
Biden outlined the most specific foreign policy agenda, advocating a reduction of Pakistan's military funding to force fair elections, and a new focus on eliciting support of the Pakistani middle class to counter militant extremism. He declared that he was the only candidate "on stage" to offer a regional plan since President Musharraf declared martial law, referring to a New Hampshire address last week, and stressed that unlike Obama and Clinton, he had actually voted to cut funding for the controversial Guantanamo prison. Then Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, showed voters his commitment to confront the Bush Doctrine, recounting how he "personally" warned the President that an attack on Iran without congressional authorization would lead to impeachment.
Clinton, who had struggled to counter some attacks in the last debate, held strong the entire evening. She assailed Obama for failing to "step up" on universal health care and challenged Edwards' record on the issue from the 2004 Campaign. Then, casting herself as the true Democratic fighter in the ring, Clinton chided Edwards for adopting mud-slinging tactics "right out of the Republican playbook." It worked. Obama was overshadowed for much of the debate, only finding his voice near the end while discussing Iran and habeas corpus. Edwards' arguments showed some strain under pressure. He questioned Clinton's honesty and record as a "Corporate Democrat," but then assured the audience that his criticisms were not "personal."
Given Obama's sluggish performance, it's striking to see that he actually spoke more than any other candidate (18 minutes). This was the kind of performance that might give a campaign manager heartburn: a speaker who sounds worse in a small field, when the audience hears extended remarks. Yet CNN was still touting an "Obama-Clinton Slugfest" when the debate ended, and the emerging conventional wisdom, as Chuck Todd explains, is that Thursday night "will be known as the debate that seemed to sharpen the contrast between Clinton and Obama and create a gap between the big two and everyone else."
The gap for the "big two" is nothing new, of course, and it has little to do with debate performances. It's based on celebrity, fundraising and media attention, which reinforce each other in an autocatalytic political process that has left serious and more seasoned candidates in the dust. The media may be so beholden to this story about "the big two" -- remember when it was three? -- that what candidates actually do at debates will not be allowed to get in the way. But for voters who actually listened on Thursday, Joe Biden offered a bold and specific alternative foreign policy for the United States.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Im not liking Obama's tactics. His voting record is so close to Clinton that pretending he is change is a bit much.
I did think Biden shows knowledge and is firmer on a realistic tract to foreign affairs.
I think Richardson, while lacking some onstage charisma is earnest and intelligent and capable.
I would like the lesser talked about to go forward. If change is needed go with Richardson, who isnt currently in the Senate, not obliged to current lobby groups and can be effective. Plus governors do well. Add Biden and you have one strong knowledge ticket
Biden is the one to whom I gave a small donation, no one else among Democrats. Twice a gave a small donation. I also donated twice to Huckabee. I like people who are intelligent and sincere and both of these candidates are that. Huckabee is nipping at Romney's heels in Iowa. Guess why? He's not as impressive as Biden, but some people still believe in Right to Life. If Catholic Biden believed in Right to Life, he might win....but perhaps the electorate is so divided on that issue that it's still a biggie. Most Christians will NOT vote for Rudy, will vote for anyone but Rudy. And his stand on Right to Life is the big reason why, although he's disgusting on every other issue as well.
I am disappointed that all of the Catholic candidates among the Democrats have gone pro-abortion. Most here will disagree--but I am in tune with what Christians think, and they will only support a Right to Lifer (except for a few of them who think maintaining the war in Iraq is the Christian thing to do, which I think it is not, obviously).
Please don't go out of your way to paint Obama negatively. OK, so Hillary won. (Or Biden, who will now go up to 6% in the polls, which is too bad because I like him).
What's the need to predictably simplify the fascinatingly complex? First, by saying "Hillary: Good", "Obama: Bad." Obama had some Greatest Hits moments: "They [immigrants] don't come here to drive." Again and again, I looked out into the audience and voters were smiling with approval, applauding, loving Obama. And the other candidates too.
Second, by acting like Obama has to conform to Wolf Blitzer's claustrophobic questioning style or high school debate team strategies. Hillary's simple "no" on driver's licenses was more damnable considering it was such an obvious attempt to make up for her previous answer.
It was a good night for Democrats, the candidates and us. All the candidates looked good. I wish I could vote for all of them (only a slight hesitation before Hillary, but I don't overdo it).
Instead of a debate, we should pin the names of the candidates on some greyhounds and they can chase an effigy of Wolf Blitzer around a track while we all place our bets and root for our favorite.
I didn't watch but I listened on radio. (You get a whole different perspective on what is going on when you don't let the cameras tell you what to focus on.) Biden was the winner just because he had the facts and made the most articulate case for his views. He didn't let himself get pulled into the foodfight that everyone else was playing.
Biden/Gore or Gore/Biden: the Dream Ticket, for sure!
A plea to all the Hillary supporters out there, please reconsider. I know you like her, and she's done her homework, and she has battled hard against the right wing conspiracy, I get it, I understand. But there are many Dems and Dem-leaning independents that just can't stand her. To us her voice sounds like fingernails on the blackboard, the sight of her makes us violently ill, the thought of her being president and commander-in-chief is more than we can bare. Now please understand, we are normally the loyal type. We'd certainly never vote for a republican, but try to put yourself in our shoes for just a moment. There are several well qualified candidates for you to chose from. I have my favorite, but look, at this point I'm not being picky. Just please chose one of the others and I will gladly, happily, gleefully go and vote for that person on election day. But if it's HRC, me and many others like me will stay home that day. I am physically unable to pull the lever for her, and the thought of having her as the leader of the free land is more than I can bare. You're supposed to be compassionate. Please find it in your heart to vote for someone, anyone, other than HRC. Is that really too much to ask? We just want a candidate we can feel good about.
I think the Hillary fans are making an enormous mistake. Sometimes there is a tendency to cheer on the former outsider - in this case the woman - just because of low expectations. She didn't fall on her face. The multi-millions of dollars in corporate money that her husband has collected to buy her union-busting scum to run her campaign actually has led to a candidate who can stand up in public, smile, and recite the lines that have been given to her. And people are pleased: look, she's a girl but she didn't even cry when those boys said mean things about her.
We're all having so much fun.
The problem is that the numbers show Hillary will not win. Go ahead and annoint her, but expect the same dismal results that we got when the top Dems decided to select Kerry and push everyone else out of the way. Kerry abandoned his "liberal" taint (though I'm not sure he's really all that liberal) and became the warrior candidate who loves war and loves to kill. The voters didn't really like him that much. I mean the Democratic voters. And the ones on the line never even thought about voting for him.
Hillary has a 50% high negative results, higher than any other Democratic candidate. She loses when put up against each of the top Republicans except is within 1% on Guiliani. I'm sure she and her scum advisors will keep pushing her further to the right trying to pick up the Klan vote, but they all hate her already, and now many progressives are pretty disgusted with corporate views.
Hillary Clinton in 2008. Another Triumphant Loss for the Democrats.
But keep ignoring the working people in this country, the 70% of people who are screaming trying to get someone's attention. Nafta didn't quite work out as "some" had hoped? That's what she said. Funny how she claims credit for all successes of her husband, but disavows any involvement for the disasters.
Frankly everybody lost in this debate. If the Dems don't check the bile at the door, they will snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Petty squabbles that parse words to define differences make everyone up there look bad.
Shame on all of them for not executing a strategy to step out of the trash baiting that Wolf and the group so easily accomplished.
Saddam baited Bush and look where it got us.
Now its Ahmadinejad and where will it lead?
Clinton/Richardson with Biden as the named Secretary of State is a pretty strong team.
Or Biden as V.P & Richardson as State, is just as good.
I'd also like them to openly acknowledge & guarantee Kucinich an important role in admin.
We are allowing claims of "experience" in foreign relations be equivalent with "success" in foreign relations. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I would have hoped to see more "success" over the issues that have driven the world view of our country down the toilet. Last night, Bill Richardson, who I originally discounted because of the crass way he comes off sometimes, absolutely shined. His previous record of success as a mediator of foreign policy and as Ambassador to the UN is a wet dream for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His experience as Governor of New Mexico in handling immigration reform is firsthand, one of action, and as a resident of a border state, I agree with him. Glad we have had so many debates, I would not have given him a second look if not for last night.
Thanks again Ari for nailing the news.
Yes, Clinton and Biden are now the leaders. She's learning, partly from him.
For a little fun, and news on who is winning the debates, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOa989IRYw
Your point about Obama is also important and accurate. "Given Obama's sluggish performance, it's striking to see that he actually spoke more than any other candidate ..."
The more he talks the worse it gets. And that includes his speeches. I've always thought that you can distinguish a bad salesman (not that I disparage salesmen -- I've been one) from an honest politician this way: the more a bad salesman is allowed to talk, the more likely he is to contradict himself. I started this campaign by signing up with Obama for all the obvious reasons. Then I listened.
Biden/Clinton 08' We have no time to waste.These are desperste times with critical issues to deal with.
The Clinton group didn't plant questions here. They planted the opposition instead.
Well, I guess you were looking at her "diamonds" rather than her words. Biden held his own, but surely didn't shine anymore than he has in the past. Hillary's a corportist through and through. She couldn't even bring herself to say that NAFTA has been a disaster--what a shame.
Biden/Richardson,
Nice team, good coverage East to West. Eastern Liberal establishment with Western pragmatism and appeal to minority voters.
Experience in all facets of executive leadership and foreign policy.
It's sounds like a strong team to me.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
