Debate Post-Mortem
Well, having sat through the entire Democratic presidential debate tonight, I suppose I should probably write something about it.
As an initial matter, I think Wolf Blitzer and CNN should be complemented. Though there were a few silly moments (please stop with the show of hands questions!), I thought this debate was approximately a thousand times more professional and substantive than either of the two clown shows hosted by MSNBC. The questions were generally simple and non-loaded, and I thought Blitzer did a pretty good job of managing the discussion and allowing for a substantive back-and-forth.
CNN clearly made a decision to focus more on the top-tier candidates. The candidates seemed to be arranged by poll-standing, with Edwards-Clinton-Obama in the center and the lower tier candidates flanking them (with Gravel and Kucinich, fittingly, at each of the far ends). And while I wasn't keeping track of the time, it seemed like the Big Three got far more speaking time than the others. And to be honest, I don't mind that. While it's somewhat unfair to people like Chris Dodd (who really did seem to get shafted time-wise), the fact is that these types of events are more useful and informative when they allow voters (and activists and donors) to get a better sense of the contrasts between the top candidates. The Democratic nominee will, in all likelihood, be one of the Big Three, regardless of whether the others are given equal time in debates like these. I have no problem with the candidates who have demonstrated that they have the most support being given a little more time to explain their views.
With respect to the substance of the debate itself, I don't think there was any clear "winner." As with the first debate, I thought Obama started out a little shaky and got more comfortable as the night wore on. I thought he did particularly well in the sit-down portion of the debate. His retort to John Edwards regarding being against the war from the beginning was also quite well-played, subtle but effective.
I thought John Edwards came across as trying a little too hard to draw distinctions between himself and his rivals. The bottomline is that there isn't a whole lot of substantive difference between the major candidates when it comes to most issues, so Edwards has to play up what seem like very trivial distinctions in order to look different. I don't think it worked very well.
Clinton, as usual, came across as confident and competent. I think she realizes that she's not the kind of candidate voters will fall in love with, but she wants to be seen as the responsible choice, and I think her advisers were probably pleased with her performance. She certainly didn't make any gaffes.
I thought Richardson was terrible. Most of his answers were non-responsive and annoying. How many times can a person mention that he was a governor?
Biden's angry truth-talker shtick was alternatively annoying and praise-worthy, depending on what he happened to be talking about. I thought his pious lecture on why he voted in favor of the Iraq supplemental was both inaccurate and unhelpful. But his answer to the hypothetical about Iran was spot on and is something that needs to be said by more Democrats. Over all, I think he did the best of the second-tier candidates.
Chris Dodd did okay but seemed to be left out of most of the major discussions. I think he wasn't as assertive as some of the others when it came to injecting himself into the conversation.
Kucinich was eloquent but kooky. Gravel was incoherent and kooky.
Overall, I don't expect this debate will have much effect on the polls or general political coverage of the campaign, but I do think it was at least mildly informative and certainly an improvement over prior debates.
As an initial matter, I think Wolf Blitzer and CNN should be complemented. Though there were a few silly moments (please stop with the show of hands questions!), I thought this debate was approximately a thousand times more professional and substantive than either of the two clown shows hosted by MSNBC. The questions were generally simple and non-loaded, and I thought Blitzer did a pretty good job of managing the discussion and allowing for a substantive back-and-forth.
CNN clearly made a decision to focus more on the top-tier candidates. The candidates seemed to be arranged by poll-standing, with Edwards-Clinton-Obama in the center and the lower tier candidates flanking them (with Gravel and Kucinich, fittingly, at each of the far ends). And while I wasn't keeping track of the time, it seemed like the Big Three got far more speaking time than the others. And to be honest, I don't mind that. While it's somewhat unfair to people like Chris Dodd (who really did seem to get shafted time-wise), the fact is that these types of events are more useful and informative when they allow voters (and activists and donors) to get a better sense of the contrasts between the top candidates. The Democratic nominee will, in all likelihood, be one of the Big Three, regardless of whether the others are given equal time in debates like these. I have no problem with the candidates who have demonstrated that they have the most support being given a little more time to explain their views.
With respect to the substance of the debate itself, I don't think there was any clear "winner." As with the first debate, I thought Obama started out a little shaky and got more comfortable as the night wore on. I thought he did particularly well in the sit-down portion of the debate. His retort to John Edwards regarding being against the war from the beginning was also quite well-played, subtle but effective.
I thought John Edwards came across as trying a little too hard to draw distinctions between himself and his rivals. The bottomline is that there isn't a whole lot of substantive difference between the major candidates when it comes to most issues, so Edwards has to play up what seem like very trivial distinctions in order to look different. I don't think it worked very well.
Clinton, as usual, came across as confident and competent. I think she realizes that she's not the kind of candidate voters will fall in love with, but she wants to be seen as the responsible choice, and I think her advisers were probably pleased with her performance. She certainly didn't make any gaffes.
I thought Richardson was terrible. Most of his answers were non-responsive and annoying. How many times can a person mention that he was a governor?
Biden's angry truth-talker shtick was alternatively annoying and praise-worthy, depending on what he happened to be talking about. I thought his pious lecture on why he voted in favor of the Iraq supplemental was both inaccurate and unhelpful. But his answer to the hypothetical about Iran was spot on and is something that needs to be said by more Democrats. Over all, I think he did the best of the second-tier candidates.
Chris Dodd did okay but seemed to be left out of most of the major discussions. I think he wasn't as assertive as some of the others when it came to injecting himself into the conversation.
Kucinich was eloquent but kooky. Gravel was incoherent and kooky.
Overall, I don't expect this debate will have much effect on the polls or general political coverage of the campaign, but I do think it was at least mildly informative and certainly an improvement over prior debates.
posted by A.L. at 10:23 PM
11 Comments:
A better way to gauge the democratic candidates would be if they were already debating the republican candidates.
Seeing how they do in discussion with
others with whom, relatively, they already agree doesn't seem to show much.
On the other hand, seeing how they would
do in debates between parties, while relevant for seeing how they will do at that same task in the general election,
may still not be that relevant for deciding how good they would be at the
job.
-Andy
You know, I think it's worth noting that Blitzer saw fit to use the JFK terrorist plot as an indication of how much danger we still face. Despite having been debunked as technically impossible by DHS and despite the clear loony incompetence of the JFK 4, CNN is still pushing the terror button.
At the same time, there was no national coverage, beyond the local Austin paper, of the attempted bombing of a women's health clinic.
Incompetent loons who had not gotten past the beavis and butthead stage of their "attack" are national news and the subject of a presidential candidates' debate. An actual terrorist attack, with an actual bomb, goes unremarked upon.
I get kooky, but Kucinich being "eloquent" ?!?!?
good point, Jay.
As for Kucinich, perhaps eloquent is an overstatement. But he's pretty smooth up there, pretty quick on his feet. It's substance, not style that's his problem.
Thanks for the update on the debate. I didn't watch it. Yeah, I think that the debate won't change the poll until we get closer and closer to who will be the Democratic candidate for Prez.
I disagree about Kucinich. Substantively, he is quite interesting. The national consensus may think it's hilarious to talk about "peace" the way he does, but that says something negative about the consensus, not him. Kucinich is there for one reason -- to talk about principles. His no bullshit response to the healthcare question, for instance, was exactly correct. Single-payer, not for profit -- that is the way, the only way, to create a just system of healthcare.
And, a question: what about that strange moment where Blitzer, during the "sit down" portion, where questions were supposed to come from the audience, departed from the question about reconciling our "democracy spreading" principle with support for Musharraf, suddenly, out of nowhere, decided to interrogate Kucinich (and then he went to a "show of hands") about assassinating bin Laden? Was that weird, or is it just me? It led to Hillary and others saying, revealingly, that the decision would be based on "how many civilians we're talking about" getting killed in the process.
Anyhow, I wondered what you thought about that.
- JLB
JLB,
I think Kucinich is right about some things, but not very practical. For instance, I think a single-payer system is the best system if you are starting from scratch. But I just don't see how such a system could ever be enacted here. Doing so would instantly kill the insurance industry and be a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry. Legislation that does that has no chance of passing. Our only realistic path to universal coverage is to move incrimentally.
I also think Kucinich's position on war funding is unrealistic.
When it comes to foreign policy generally, I think Kucinich's perspective is valuable, that it adds to the debate, but I just don't think he represents a mainstream position. I, for one, wouldn't trust his judgment on such issues if he were president.
In that exchange regarding taking out Bin Laden, I agreed with Obama. I don't think such a move is illegal, and in fact, I think it would be prudent under the right circumstances.
Kucinich's position on stopping war funding is the rational and responsible one. I don't trust the judgement of any politician that supports continuing the funding for the war.
Kucinich's position on stopping war funding is the rational and responsible one. I don't trust the judgement of any politician that supports continuing the funding for the war.
Kucinich is in favor of simply not submitting a funding a bill, a move that could be accomplished by a determined minority (particularly in the Senate). I think that's undemocratic, and sets a bad precedent. Whatever Congress decides to do, it should do it through it's normal bicameral process.
Moreover, you can't just ignore the fact that Bush is president and would likely continue the war without funding just to prove a point (particularly if the defunding is accomplished by refusing to submit a bill, as opposed to affirmatively passing a de-funding resolution).
And finally, though it's partly their own fault, those who point out that Americans do not favor defunding the war are right. Polls consistently show this, largely because both Republicans and Democrats have managed to convince people that de-funding would somehow result in harm befalling our troops.
Democrats need to make the case that this isn't so, but they can't just pretend that de-funding is supported by a majority of people. It's not.
Hillary. The advantage of being frontrunner is that to "win" a debate all you have to do is not lose. So in that sense, she won. She sounded full of testosterone and even looked taller thanks to the platform she was perched on behind her podium (did anyone else notice it in the wide-angle side shots?). But her totally scripted answers turn my stomach, and her infernal cackling sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West.
Obama. A good performance, but not enough. I'm afraid he won't be able to catch Hillary unless he stops being nice and resorts to slash-and-burn politics, at which point he loses my vote.
Edwards. Slick, oily, pretentious, phony, hypocritical ... what other negative epithets can I find about this man? How can he have the nerve to stand right next to Hillary and claim that he's "proud" of being the first candidate to present a health-care plan? Sure, hers was a miserable failure, but she did present it almost fifteen years ago! And he gets credit for the most hypocritical statement of the evening: "I don't know if I know what a rich person is." (Second most hypocritical award goes to Clinton: "My dear husband..." Gag.)
Biden. I liked him when he ran in 1988, but he's a dinosaur now. Darfur, Schmarfur, it's all a smokescreen to hide the blood on his hands from Iraq. And he flat-out lied when he said 67 votes are needed for withdrawal. Actually, zero votes are needed: all that's necessary is to write no funding bill at all. And he has the gall to claim that he's being "honest" and not playing politics?
Richardson. He brags about the "great jobs" given to him by Bill Clinton. But did he actually do anything to solve the energy crisis as Energy Secretary or to solve the Iraq crisis, on which he says he spent eighty percent of his time as UN envoy? Please. Go back to your pro-growth desert fiefdom and leave the rest of us alone!
Dodd. Yikes. The man looks like Barney Rubble from the Flintstones. And he thinks that all we have to do to solve the oil crisis is start buying oil at $40 a barrel again? Um, and who, exactly, is going to sell us oil at $40 a barrel?
Kucinich. A good performance for the most part, though his answer about bin Laden was idiotic. Here's a man who's declared war on our country and our entire way of life, and all K would do is take him to court? And then what, hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah?
Gravel. Good grief, does anyone take this man seriously? And should he really be talking about taking his "meds" on live tv? It's a shame that he's the only one who had the courage to say what needs to be said about oil prices: stop whining and grow up! And look at the other four dollars per barrel we're spending to keep prices at three dollars per barrel. It's insanity!
Kucinich. A good performance for the most part, though his answer about bin Laden was idiotic. Here's a man who's declared war on our country and our entire way of life, and all K would do is take him to court?
Since when can a man legitimately declare war on a country? (Note, bin Laden has not declared war on "our entire way of life", that's just something GWB would like you to believe.) We don't go to war against individuals, we prosecute them. K's answer about Bin Laden was the only sane and reasonable one.
Disagree? OK, I'm declaring war on the USA right now because GWB is an idiot. Come and get me.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home