TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

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

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
15.01.2008
The Democratic Debate

I already know from email that some colleagues disagree, but I saw a modest win for Hillary tonight. (And a clear win for the entire party, insofar as the race/gender feud of the past several days ground to a halt, despite the best efforts of moderators Tim Russert and Brian Williams) As always, Obama's grandeur was flattened in the debate format--as opposed to the big stage with a rapt audience--while once again I thought Hillary's quick feet and policy chops shined through. Hillary also just seemed more in charge--whether she was chiding Russert and Williams for not asking enough "black/brown" questions, or zinging both Obama (readiness to face security challenges, voting for the "Dick Cheney" energy bill) and Edwards (flipping on Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear storage site).

That said, her potshots make me wonder if she's sweating the polls more than she's letting on. Hillary also had a couple of weak moments. For instance, her explanation that she voted for the 2001 bankruptcy reform bill but was "happy that it never became law" strikes me as a dangerous flirtation with the narrative of "Clintonian" positioning, a la her answer about illegal immigrant drivers licenses. And, when asked about her biggest weakness, she seemed to make a half-effort at showing her "human" side again--this time by hinting at a realization that she strikes some people as overbearing at times. But her answer was an awkward euphemistic muddle that did her little good. (I'll grant that it was far better than Edwards's bold confession that, darn it, sometimes he just feels other people's pain too deeply. Not everyone has to be John McCain but Edwards increasingly seems like a wind up doll with about a dozen pre-programmed answers.)  

One highlight was the Obama-Hillary split about executive management. Obama was refreshingly self-deprecating when he confessed to a certain flakiness about keeping track of paper, and that he would need help with bureaucratic details. But I wonder if this went too far. Obama implied that a president should be above managing the flow of memos, which is true to a point. However, anyone who read the Washington Post's great series on how Dick Cheney assumed so much White House power will know that, in Washington, paper flow can equal power flow. (That said, after Hillary tried to score points on that answer, Obama came back with an effective "judgment" point about their difference on the Iraq invasion.)

So, I give Hillary a slight advantage tonight. But I don't see it doing much to change the race. The fact that 70 percent of African-Americans in Michigan tonight voted "uncommited" rather than for Hillary strikes me as a far more dramatic and relevant story.

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:06 PM with 6 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!

ralphnelle said:

This is pretty fair stuff, although I'm surprised you didn't mention the co-sponsor move that had Matthews and Olbermann close to climax in MSNBC's comically pro-Clinton post-debate analysis.

One other thing I'd add: this is the first debate in which Obama has managed to show his sense of humor and general sensitivity ("in Illinois they [hispanics] all voted for me [laughter]," "because my wife is extraordinary and my kids are above average [laughter]...," secretaries vs. ceos [laughter], etc.). He made the audience laugh several times, he smiled a lot, and he never started a fight with Hillary or John, whereas they started a few with him. I thought he looked above the fray, in command of the issues, cool and fair and reasonable (to Hillary's early hyperactivity--did she have too much coffee during the prep?), and he calmly body-slammed Hillary on the politics of fear.

It was hands down his best debate of the campaign. Did he win? I don't know what it means to "win" these things. It's all so subjective.

January 16, 2008 1:13 AM

jhildner said:

ralph and michael:  Agree wth ralph!  A small confession to make:  I haven't watched several of these debates.  I watched this one, though, and was very impressed with (my admitted favorite) Obama.  It seemed that he set the tone on several of the questions and came off as the guy to beat in the room.  Hillary was either agreeing or offering a weak opposition which Obama handily dealt with.  (The chief operating officer stuff was a case in point, and the roughest point for Obama.  That was a clear first point for Hillary until Obama's rebuttal, which won me over, and I'm a critical viewer.)  For the vaunted speech-maker that he is (and his speeches are either very good or stop-the-presses inspirational), he's not quite as smooth at extemporaneous delivery compared with the other two.  But, to my mind, he easily matched Hillary's supposed strengths on policy, and Hillary, meanwhile, could not match Obama's strength of offering transformational leadership.  Despite the quiet and civil tone of the debate, Obama came off, to me, as the fired up and presidential candidate in the room.  He didn't "cry" about how he believes thus-and-so in his soul, the way Edwards did at first, but he came off as honest and committed and serious.  Hillary -- whom I generally admire and like (she's likable enough, as Obama said) -- did not stand out at all in this contest.  I'm surprised to read that the post-debate analysis (which I didn't watch) was that Hillary emerged as the strongest.  Chris Matthews was all about Obama after Iowa, and now he's all about Hillary.  Could it be that these types watch these debates with an eye toward filling out their glib, preconceived narratives?

January 16, 2008 3:29 AM

psantillana said:

Chris Matthews is a junior alpha - he just bows down to whoever seems like a winner.  Obama wins Iowa, it's Obama.  Hillary wins NH [in part because of hatred for Matthews] and the fawning begins. Plus her demeanor in this debate was chest-thumpy and aggressive [example, apart from tone: when she jumped on the emailer question that was directed to Obama], and junior alphas get taken in by that every time.

January 16, 2008 5:31 AM

jmrugo said:

I thought HRC's policy and detail chops were clearly superior.  She knows what she wants to do and strikes me as someone experienced and knowledgeable enough to wield all the levers of power at her disposal in support of her agenda.  I thought Obama was great on diffusing the race issue.  He has a grace about him for sure.  All three are highly impressive and well qualified.  I think Obama will be a great President some day but is simply not ready nor experienced enough at this particular time.  I was floored by Matthews comments because it is clear he hates Hillary.  However, he found her attack on Bush to be very powerful stuff as he put it.  I guess he now hates W more than Hillary.  Anyway, a great day to be a Democrat after seeing these three strong people hash out real substance in a debate the likes of which I have never seen.

January 16, 2008 11:43 AM

The Plank said:

I can't believe no one has mentioned what surely was the most hilarious moment from last night's

January 16, 2008 1:26 PM

timteeter said:

I was amazed at the Matthews pronouncements.  Can someone explain the logic of this?

Before and after the Iowa caucus:  

She's acting like she's the presumptive nominee.  Boy will she get / has she gotten her comeuppance!

After the New Hampshire primary and the Las Vegas debate:

She's acting like the presumptive nominee.  Brilliant!

This is what passes for political analysis on Hardball I guess . . .

January 16, 2008 2:20 PM