MSNBC Sets Up Clinton Target In Last Night's Debate

The following piece was published by the Huffington Post's OffTheBus.
 
It's good to be Queen. Except when it's not.

Democrats are different from Republicans. That means their debates are different, too. Well, for the most part. Just like in the GOP debates, Hillary Clinton was the star--or perhaps target.

The MSNBC debate on Tuesday night took place at Drexel University in Philadelphia, a location that was brought up often, as in "birthplace of freedom...birthplace of democracy...birthplace of giving people the power..." Since Pennsylvania isn't an important early primary state, this is probably the last time the Democratic candidates will express so much enthusiasm for any city in the state, so enjoy it while you can Philadelphians.

The difference between the two parties' debates is most noticeable in the topics and the amount of time spent on them. Iran was mentioned in several of the GOP debates, but in the Democratic debate tonight, not only was it the first topic up for discussion, but it took up a half hour. Education got much more play than it ever did in any of the GOP debates. There was blame on big business for the drop in students' studying medicine, for the inability to get shipping containers inspected, for problems with Social Security, and for hedge funds not taking their share of the tax burden. Needless to say, the Republicans felt differently about business. Conversely, there was no talk in this debate about strengthening the family, the 2nd amendment, building fences along borders, or a flat tax.

Those were some of the differences, but that brings us back to the common theme: get Hillary.

It was no surprise that the other candidates came into the debate aiming hard at the front-running senator. But they didn't have to work hard at this, because MSNBC set up Clinton as a target. Questions were directed at her first, and then other candidates were asked what they thought about her answer. Candidates were given statements made by Clinton and asked to comment on them, discuss whether they agreed or disagreed, and whether they felt she was being consistent. And they all cheerfully complied; she's far ahead of the others in the polls, so her competitors best chance is to try to get her to make a mistake.

Mrs. Clinton didn't blow up or fall apart or say something like, "I think Iraq is going rather well," but she did make it easy for her opponents to make their point about her being a mind-changer and an overly cautious candidate who shifts positions with the political wind. She parsed sentences and statements with excessive fineness in a most lawyerly way, and tried her best to say nothing about difficult topics. She was elusive whenever possible. Her answer to a question on New York governor's controversial plan to allow illegal immigrants to get drivers' licenses was so convoluted and simultaneously careful and vague that John Edwards said he thought she had changed positions several times in two minutes or less. And no matter how many times the commentators quizzed her on this, she couldn't quite be nailed down (the final verdict seemed to be something along the lines of she didn't really approve of the idea but understood why Spitzer was doing it. I don't really approve of dangling prepositions, but I understand why people let them go in their writing).

But even in the similarity in their choice of target, there was a difference in the Republicans and Democrats reproach, and this was something as simple as a name. The Republicans constantly refer to her as Hillary, usually said in a tone that turns the word into a pejorative or a threat. The Democrats all referred to her as Senator Clinton or the Senator. Yet they all--including Hillary Clinton--called everyone else onstage by their first names: Joe, Chris, John, Barack. What does this say about these candidates and their feelings about Mrs. Clinton? Does it indicate any kind of respect for her? Was it a conscious move to sound different than the Republicans? It could mean nothing at all. Then again, they may be developing their own brand of scorn: Bill Richardson pointed out that no senator has been elected president since John F. Kennedy. Being a governor has been the fashionable ticket to electability (though likely not for Mr. Richarson. Sorry, governor!). Maybe "senator" is the new "Hillary."

The Democrats onstage tonight generally didn't try to charm viewers or make them laugh (or if they were they soundly failed). But the entertainer of the evening award undoubtedly went to, of all people, Joe Biden. Senator (oops, that word!) was one of the few candidates to even mention their GOP counterparts (Obama took a few tentative shots at Romney), most specifically Rudy Giuliani, who he called the least qualified person to run for president since George W. Bush. He described Rudy's campaigning style: "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence--a noun, a verb, and '9/11.'" This deservedly got the biggest laugh of the night.

Who won? It's hard to say and it probably doesn't matter. But maybe there was an unexpected winner, at least in the publicity stakes.

For the post-debate interviews, MSNBC moved Chris Matthews and his guests to an outdoor location. A crowd lined the fence behind him, watching and waving signs. And nearly every one of those signs was for Ron Paul. Gosh darn it, they really are everywhere, aren't they?

Comments

[maverick7919]

I think it's very unprofessional of the author to write off Governor Bill Richardson this early. This man has the experience and results to lead this country. If your worry is electability, you need to read this:
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2007/11/richardson-would-beat-any-republican.html
The west is increasingly becomming Democratic and Governor Richardson is the one to lead us in turning it in our direction.

[dustbag44]

Seriously? I've never seen a bigger bunch of whiners than Hillary's people. She's the front runner for goodness sakes, she SHOULD be challenged and she SHOULD be able to stand up to the challenges. The fact that at the slightest pressure she resorts to the "woe is me" tactic, is frankly disconcerting. If she is president and a foreign country puts pressure on her is she going to say they're "piling on." She pulled this same tactic in her senate race and every year that Bill was in office. I guess this time it's the vast left-wing conspiracy, right? It's old. You're a big girl, in a national presidential race, suck it up and stand up for something. I guess that's too much to ask. As for the moderators, I think they were doing their job. They're journalists, they're supposed to ask the hard questions and I'm glad they pointed out that Hillary refused to answer questions. If you're going to elect her don't you want to know what she believes and not get double talk all the time. Playing the "I'm the opposite of Bush" card is not going to work in this campaign.

[NuAgeDok]

Listening to Hardball, the debate itself and the the post-debat­e-analysis (if you can call it that) I thought it must have been Sean Hannity operating animatronic puppets representing Chris Matthews and Tim Russert because the attacks on Hillary were so over the top.

It was a set-up and a vicious hatchet-job on Hillary. I can't figure out why the obvious bias and effort to gang-up on her.

Possible reasons;
1. Piss poor ratings for MSNBC and they were trying to bump them up by trashing the front runner because she's too far ahead.
2. Maybe they really are concerned about her electability and they figured they could bring here down now instead of seeing her flame out in the general election.
3. They are just assholes.

What do you think?

[dijo]

I'll go with door #2.

[lawyeredup]

NuAge! I think the answer is #3

[Menemshasunset]

Notice how Obama got the "is your name going to be problem" question while Hillary got the tough immigration and driver's license. There is no room for nuance- no worthy issue has a yes or no answer- I want a President who speaks in full thoughts- These debates and the MSM that target are unfair and harmful. MSNBC even used the Rocky theme song all day to pump up the fight theme- For goodness sake -this is the for the future of our children- They (especially sanctimonious Matthews and Russert) sick.

[klondiker]

What are you talking about?? Obama constantly referred to him as "Hillary"!

[lawyeredup]

all of them might as well call her DADDY cuz she was kicking their asses all over the podium.

[Chris1345]

I noticed the same thing, that MSNBC set this up to be a "target Clinton" debate. It seems anytime Russert speaks to Clinton he gets visibly upset. He even showed up this time with more props, a letter from Bill Clinton. Where was his Obama and Edwards props?

At times I feel like Clinton is debating Russert, he's relentless in his scorn and disdain for her. Shouldn't he just be asking the questions and letting the candidates duke/argue it out? Not argue with their answers themselves. I felt like this debate was disappointing because it was obviously staged to go a certain way by MSNBC (a news org. I generally respect).

[lawyeredup]

I thought I was the only one that notice what Tim Russert and Chris Mathews was doing. Both of them were clearly anti Hillary and it shows.
Looking at all that she said last night, Chris Mathews was most happier that she seem vulnerable(which she's not) on the issue of drivers license to illegal immigrants in New York.
Hillary have apparently at some point said she thought it was a good idea -- but stop short of endorsing it -- that wasn't good enough for Russert or Mathews both of whom declear her vulnerablity on the issue.
If illegal immigrants were issued a drivers license with the words -- "for Identification / Insurance purposes only" inscribed on it, I bet the state of New York or any other states for that matter will be able to tell at any particular time - give or take, how many illegal immigrants is in their states, how to plan for them and, it sure will make the roads more safer since they will be able to buy insurance. And, for any other goods or services of a sensitive nature, like renting a car or truck, receiving care at the hospital, going through the airport and applying for employment -- more prove would be required once the attendees sees the inscription on the license.
It would even help reduce the use of other peoples social security card by this immigrants in againing employment. So, it is actually a good idea that need to be study.
And the argument that those who want to do us harm will used it to agin access is idiotic at best since those that actually did do us harm where not just able to again entry into the country, they were able to obtained our green card / citizenship after the fact -- go figure!.

[shelbinator]

I've seen some stories speculating about whether the other candidates might feel uneasy going after the lone female candidate too hard, like it was seem unchivalrous or something. So perhaps by paying her the respect of her title every time, they're just overcompensating, trying to avoid any allegations that they're not respecting their female counterpart?

As for entertainment of the evening, Biden has consistently been the bringer of the best one-liner to these debates, and I think it's finally safe to put his reputation as a bloviater on the shelf given the consistency of his performances. I just wish he'd get the kind of airtime commensurate with his experience -- six minutes and change on last night's Dodd Clock, that's a travesty!