TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.12.2007
A Lousy Format for Hillary at the NPR Debate

Bad news for Hillary out of the gates at the NPR debate. The moderators just announced that there will only be three topics discussed over the next two hours: Iran, China, and immigration. Iran's obviously tricky for Hillary in the aftermath of Kyl-Lieberman. Immigration is, too, though it's arguably tricky for everyone. But the big problem is no health care, which is where Hillary was groping for a foot-hold against Obama.

Hillary just fielded the first question on Iran. I could see the new intelligence revelations on the Iranian nuclear program cutting either way. On the one hand, it will ultimately make the issue fade a bit, which benefits her. On the other, it could make her Kyl-Lieberman vote that much harder to defend. In particular, it could make the charge that she's too trusting of the Bush administration that much more damning. (Edwards alluded to this, without mentioning Hillary, in his first response.)

Update: Hillary throws some elbows on Iran (albeit defensive elbows), saying Obama and Edwards both took a hawkish line on the country's nuclear program before it became politically convenient to hit her on it.

Update II: The absence of a health care discussion wasn't just bad for Hillary, it was bad for the entire debate. I appreciate that NPR was trying to bore in on three big-deal issues, and I give them points for that alongside the frequent tawdriness of the televised debates. But since this is, you know, a competition, why not pick some issues where the candidates actually have some differences? Once the Iran questions ended, there wasn't a whole lot separating one candidate from the other. Not the most productive use of their time or voters'.

--Noam Scheiber 

Posted: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:08 PM with 11 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

"groping for a foothold"? you mean like a chimp? And I thought Kos was harsh.

December 4, 2007 2:28 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Ugh...I'm an immigration hawk, and enforcement first guy, and very interested in immigration....especially in the GOP debate, where candidates all disagree and mislead the public about their positions...

But why is this issue being discussed in a Democratic debate? All Democrats agree and support comprehensive immigration reform...this is not a point of disagreement, so it should not be a focus.

And China? Oh, I can't wait for the predictable anti-free trade/Anti-Walmart soundbites...

Can't we have a debate about housing policy? With or without the mortgage problems, there is an affordable housing crisis and a couple of candidates have large proposals.

And healthcare? Clearly there was a spat last week over this - it's a rare policy related spat - can't we discuss that?

How about global warming? Will any candidate think outside the box and consider using the tax code to correct the current incentives for inefficient (carbon wasting) land use?

lame!

December 4, 2007 2:33 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Good framing for Obama on Iraq - paraphrased: "I was called naive for wanting to engage in diplomacy with Iran."

December 4, 2007 2:35 PM

newdex said:

virginiacentrist is right.  If immigration is a topic for the Democrats, they should make healthcare a topic for the GOP

December 4, 2007 3:27 PM

jet said:

But we're liking the radio format.  You Tube still demands that you look at the picture as do TV debates.  We're (the group I'm listening with) running this in the background picking out the salient portions.  I like the format.

December 4, 2007 4:06 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Jet:

But you didn't get to see Obama wrinkle his brow and pretend to be pensive and thoughtful! You also missed Richardson's "aw shucks" look, Clinton's "stare of death" when criticized, Edwards' "pretending to be outraged" look, and Biden's "Let me give it to you straight" look.

December 4, 2007 4:15 PM

wgcreeley said:

Ha! I didn't miss the visuals, and I sure as hell didn't miss Wolf Blitzer, but I did miss the health care talk. NPR ran a tight debate, but it would have been better had health care replaced immigration for the reasons noted above.

I also realize that I didn't really miss Bill Richardson all that much.

December 4, 2007 4:40 PM

wgcreeley said:

Interesting, too, to "notice what you notice" (in Allen Ginsberg's phrase) when the voice is all you've got to work with.

December 4, 2007 4:42 PM

purcellneil said:

Health care?  Didn't Hillary and Obama basically copy the Edwards plan?  Why quibble about the minor changes they introduced?  Isn't the only question really which one of the three will make it happen?  

December 5, 2007 12:44 PM

reganad said:

I hate these kind of critiques.  The debate host set the parameters.  That's what they chose to talk about.  When you host a debate, you can set the parameters.  I wanted to hear these things discussed.  I want to hear health care discussed.  I don't want to hear  "why didn't they talk about (Insert my pet interest here).  Why didn't you write about something else?  Ha!

December 5, 2007 3:13 PM

The Stump said:

Okay, okay. So it was a completely lame debate: Another inexplicable decision to take meaty topics off

December 13, 2007 1:46 AM