|
||
Candidates Play Nice, Moderator Plays It Safe At Democratic Debate
The following piece was produced by HuffPost's OffTheBus.
The Democrats debated today in a forum sponsored by the Des Moines Register -- and the 90 minutes were as subdued as they possibly could have been. In fact, it looked like the six candidates (Kucinich and Gravel were excluded, which is quite inexplicable considering Alan Keyes participated in the GOP debate yesterday) were vying for the endorsement of Senator Harkin and of the Des Moines Register more than they were trying to convince Iowa voters.
All in all, it was a good day for all the candidates. Hillary Clinton looked enthusiastic and ready to discuss substance, Edwards was back to his sunny 2004 image, and Obama was more poised and presidential than ever. But in a stunning reversal, it was Clinton who was trying to score points against her rivals rather than the other way around. As for the second-tier candidates, they got much more airtime than usual and used it well.
The debate is not likely to change many people's minds in that few contrasts were drawn, but every candidate was right on message and people's impressions are likely to be confirmed. Insofar as Clinton needed a strong showing that would slow down talk of her slide and vulnerabilities, she got it. Insofar as Obama wanted to avoid major showdowns that could reverse the storyline of his momentum, he got that, too. And insofar as Edwards's hope in the next three weeks is to capture the spirit of Iowa nice, he still has every chance of prevailing on January 3rd.
Few contrasts were drawn. The moderator made sure to avoid any confrontation by focusing her questions on issues on which there is little disagreement between candidates. Iraq, Iran and health care -- the three issues on which most of the campaign has been waged this fall -- were avoided. Instead, questions concentrated on education and the economy - worthwhile subjects - but ones on which candidates typically agree.
As a result, the candidates engaged in almost no back-and-forth, and the few direct exchanges were meant as amusing jokes. Most strikingly, there wasn't the need for a single rebuttal, as candidates never attacked each other by name. And the two-three actual digs were so subtle that it's doubtful that most voters got what they meant. The contrast could not have been more pronounced from the fireworks of the past two debates in Philadelphia and in Las Vegas.
John Edwards in particular has changed a lot. He was the one driving the anti-Clinton attacks in prior debates, but Clinton has lost her inevitability in the past month and she has tumbled down in a toss-up in all early states. Edwards no longer needs to get her down; instead, he focused on improving his own image and looking presidential and optimistic. He stayed true to his anti-lobbyist speech, but remember how much more pointed it sounded a few weeks back when he explicitly connected his argument to Clinton's ties to special interests. Three weeks from the caucuses, it's time for the sunny Edwards who promises to fight for every Iowan, the Edwards that surged in the last weeks of 2004.
Barack Obama stayed away even more from anything that could be interpreted as an attack. He has always been uncomfortable with staging big contrasts at these debates, and he is clearly happy to not have to do so now that momentum is on his side. He also got a nice moment when he jumped in on behalf of Joe Biden who was asked by the moderator whether he was uncomfortable talking about race after a number of controversial comments. After Biden delivered a good answer focusing on his record and all candidates offered support with a chorus of "here, here" Obama jumped in to offer a "testimony" on Biden's behalf which made him look like an authority on stage and a spokesperson for the candidates -- though it was also an uncomfortable moment to have Obama intervene as a sort of official voice for minorities when Biden had done very well on his own.
As for Clinton, it was clear from her posture how much has changed since the last debate. Instead of appearing calm and above the fray, she was eager to show her enthusiasm. She came across as determined, which is sure to help with viewers, but it was also obvious that Clinton was more nervous than usual. And she was the one who took digs at her opponents, including this statement that is bound to be quoted the most often in news accounts: "Some believe you get change by demanding it. Some believe you get it by hoping for it. I believe you get it by working hard."
The first part was meant as an attack against Edwards; the second against Obama. And this is in essence Clinton's argument: Everyone on this stage proposes change to you, but I am the only one who will work hard enough, who knows Washington well enough to deliver and to work hard. The combination of change and experience has been Clinton's argument all along. In the closing weeks of the campaign, she is seeking to close out her message more explicitly. Consider her second dig of the day, even more subtle, even more buried: She insisted that she would be ready to "move quickly" once she would get to the White House, a line she has used before to signal Obama's inexperience.
Because of the format of the debate, the second-tier candidate got much more airtime than usual as well -- and Richardson talked more than all other candidates. And he was the candidate who mentioned Iraq first in his opening statement (which was, paradoxically enough, way into the debate rather than at the beginning) by explaining that it is the most important issue in this election and rebelling at its exclusion from the debate. But he then inexplicably said nothing about Iraq at all when asked what he would do in his first year in office, whereas all the others made sure to say they would work on ending the war. This is where Richardson usually blasts his opponents for wanting to leave residual troops in, but he missed his cue.
Biden looked decidedly emotional -- and not just during the exchange over his racial insensitivity. The candidate known for his debate jokes was more somber than usual, and that made him less effective. As for Chris Dodd, his campaign theme was more obvious than ever: Restore the Constitution and the rule of law. All candidates said it, Chris Dodd made it crystal clear.
The first consequence of the debate could come on Sunday, when the Des Moines Register is expected to endorse a candidate. They supported Edwards in 2004, providing his candidacy with a major last-minute boost.
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
Some really good posts on this thread. Although Hillary MAY not be the BEST candidate (whether that's true or not remains to be seen), but, she IS the only woman running, and I would really like to see this country FINALLY have a woman president. We're long overdue.
If Joe Biden favors the death penalty, then he's definitely off my list. I once thought that Dennis Kucinich might be a viable alternative, but then I learned he favors amnesty for illegal immigrants. So, that takes HIM off my list.
Obama talks pretty, but does he have enough experience to deliver? Maybe in '12, but I don't think in '08. I do like him, though, but I also like Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson.
Regardless, whomever the Democrats nominate, that's the candidate I will support.
Joe Biden and Bill Richardson were fantastic!!!
Obama admitted his worst fear was losing. Hum...My worst fear is his winning - a total incompetent for President - no experience - reliant upon others to tell him what to do. His plan for Iraq - none - let the generals tell him what to do.
Joe Biden - Actions speak louder than words.
www.joebiden.com
A Biden/Richardson ticket would be fantastic.
So let's see... They stuck to "safe" topics, made little attempt to differentiate themselves from each other, faked their opinions to match their collective misconception of public opinion, and left out the one Democratic candidate not afraid to be honest. Somebody please tell me the point of wasting time and money on this "debate."
The Democratic Party and the general political system being what they are, I can make a few predictions:
1. Hillary or Obama will "win" the Democratic nomination for being the two the media actually pays attention to.
2. Said candidate will run the same bland, boring, non-offensive milk toast campaign Gore and Kerry lost with. The Republican candidate will spend most of his time pandering to "Christians"* and asking "conservative" groupies** to close their eyes to reality. Said "Christians"* and groupies** will nearly wet their pants with excitement.
3. After yet another pathetic campaign cycle, few citizens will bother to vote. The Democratic candidate will loose 49.5% to 50.5%. The Democrats will blame everything except their own pathetic campaign and losing strategies. The Republicans will see the narrow "victory" as a mandate to continue the sleaze and corruption the Bush administration and its cohorts have carried out for the last six years.
* By "Christians" I mean people who call themselves "real Christians" as a means to feel superior to others, while ignoring the actual teachings of Christ in favor of false profits like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, James Hammond, et al.
** By Republican groupies I mean the pathetic losers who parrot the rantings of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al without consideration to meaning or truth.
Here is the link to Biden's defense on his racial record and Obama's self serving support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOXzyTGsC1c&e
It was a moving tribute when Obama mentioned George H.W. Bush in a positive light as a former president.
It was almost as moving as his invocation of Ronald Reagan in one of the first debates.
Do we really have to stoop that low to get votes from the red states?
Reagan and Bush One were absolutely STINKO presidents.
Hello? Barack? Are you there?
A woman said, following the Des Moines, Iowa debate that Obama defending Biden on racial issues was touching.
Obama was a day late and a dollar short. The time for him to have defended Joe Biden was when he first made the remark. But he didn’t. The media and Sharpton and Jackson made a federal case out of an offhanded remark that Obama was mainstream, good looking, clean and articulate. I assumed that Biden meant cleancut or clean meaning honest as opposed to dirty meaning dishonest. The media twisted it around and made a federal case out of it. It hurt Joe dearly, killed his campaign before it got started, he had to regroup and start over. No I don’t think it was touching, it was self serving.
Without Kucinich, or Gravel, this debate was not even democratic. At least Dodd says we need to restore the Constitution, but healthcare, is a big issue too, after bringing our troops home. None of this "affordable" health insurance, that means the least amount of care for the poor and the best for the wealthiest - kind of like what the Legislators have - government subsidy - taxpayer paid and top of the line. We should all have the Legislators insurance, the best for all citizens. Hillarycare will be just affordable. She wants to make sure the Big Drug Companies and Insurance Companies get their big profits. She won't even come out for taking the cap off deductions for Social Security, so we can equally get money back into the unlocked trust fund, from which Administrations keep borrowing. I don't want a same old, same old Administration that has catered to the wishes of big corporations and business cronies, sometimes faith-based. Reminds me of what Mussolini once said re: government, that which is run by corporations and religion - that is fascism. Do we want another Mussolini, or a Hitler, or even another King George? This is what we have sunk into without, a public outcry and demonstrations in the streets, to demand our civil rights be restored.
One of the writers on this blog, accused liberals in having their heads in the sand because they don't vote for Obama. First, not everyone on this blog is a liberal. There are moderates (which is mostly the democratic party now a days) and conservatives. Many believe in pro-life but don't believe in gay rights, many believe in pro-choice but don't believe in gay rights, etc.etc. The democratics that continue to vote for Hillary Clinton, even though, Msnbc and Fox are constantly bashing her, is not that we are scare of putting a black man in office, but we are certain that "experience" is the factor that is needed to clean up this "blunder" that has consumed our country in this adminstration. Obama is a fine example of future nominees and with a few more experience years, I believe he would be good for a change in American, but, we are in a great tribulation and turmoil with our country and we don't have the time for Job training, so, we, as democratics continue to have Hillary ahead in a general election. If you go back to 2004, Hillary was asked to run for President, she refused, and the reason? Because she was not experience and wanted to learn more before taking this big step. Obama has a very rich friend who thought that he should try to run and become the president, and it was for personal friendship reasons and her ambition was to be part of this decison, and that person is Oprah. Yes, the speech" this is not a blue america, or a red america", but it is not sufficient for position in the white house. Lovely speech. As for his hiring of past Clinton advisors, there is shows that his judgment is not all as he makes it out to be especially hiring the same people that he constantly compaints about being in the white house again. He is not really to govern. Let the woman come in first, and if she is forgiving, let him be in the vice president's role.
I am hesitant to care about a debate in which not all of the Democratic nominees were even present and I am quite sure that I am not alone. In place of his participation in this debate I'll have to say VOTE KUCINICH.
The Democrats blew it not inviting EVERYONE. Party for the people my ass! The CFR doesn't want real answers. Dennis Kuchinich has my vote in the primary. The final election? I'll probably vote third party. I sick of the same old garbage lies. Neither party deserves my vote. Think about it?...Ask yourself if the Republicrats are going to stop jobs from going overseas. Or if they're going to stop Corporations from destroying our planet? You think these corporate controlled party's really care what we think?
I don't.
IF ANYONE WANT REAL CHANGE....VOTE FOR A WOMAN AS OTHER LARGE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD HAVE DONE. THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE "RUNS" THE WORLD....WE NEED TO PUT A WOMAN IN INSTEAD OF THESE "WANNA BE DICTATORS/FACISTS AND LYING, MINIPULATIVE MEN!!!
Not a debate. A disgrace and a farce. Vote for Dennis Kucinich.
It was refreshing to see the second tier candidates finally get "equal time"... One has to wonder if they had had it all along, who our "front-runners" would be now.
The buzz, I am happy to say, is growing around JOE BIDEN...He seemed a little off during the debate, and I know he had a cold, but there seemed to be something else...
And then it occurred to me.
Senator BIDEN's wife and infant daughter were killed between the time he was elected to the Senate (Nov.) and the time he was sworn in...
That it was possibly/probably in December...
I think it's that Senator Biden's somber and emotional demeanor may have been due to the fact that this is the 35th anniversary of his wife and daughter's deaths.
Elevate Excellence.
JOE BIDEN for President.
They all did well. Hillary gave substantive
responses. The MSM made much of Obama's last question, which he DID NOT ANSWER, he deflected and that is the clip, especially MSNBC, keeps running! After, Obama first spoke about his use of drugs in Iowa, it was Romney to first bring it up negatively, as opposed to Giulliani's comments, which got more press.
With this in mind, I suspect, Shaheen made his
comments. Republican support groups have no
bounds. Its unfortunate that posing a question
would have such a result. Hillary needs to move
on from this, stay focused on the campaign and
deliver her message for the nation.
Yawn . . . who cares? As far as I'm concerned, the debate was a bust because the candidate of interest to me, Dennis Kucinich, was not allowed to debate. I think the other candidates should have insisted that he and Gravel be included and refused to debate without them, in the spirit of real democracy. But they didn't, which speaks volumes about their politics.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
