TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 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
16.01.2008
The Vegas Debate

I scratched my head when I heard Chris Matthews proclaim Hillary the victor of tonight's debate on the strength of her "presidential"-ism and her Iraq maneuvering. There's no question Hillary looked confident and in-command, and that she's put her Iraq problems behind her. (Though I'd argue that happened a couple months ago.) Conversely, there were times when Obama seemed a little tired and out of it. But I think this plane of analysis mostly misses what had happened last night.

For the last week, you could sense the campaign obsessives becoming increasingly pessimistic about Obama's chances. This happened for two reasons. First, an extensive discussion of race seemed to force Obama into the role of "black candidate." Second, Hillary's questions about the steadfastness of Obama's war opposition made him look like a typical equivocating politician. The thinking was that Hillary would win if the race became a competition between a "white candidate" and a "black candidate," or a race between two conventional candidates. Worse, Hillary seemed able to impose these frames on the race almost at will. If Obama ignored the charges, he risked having them stick. And if he engaged, he risked becoming exactly what he wanted to avoid--either an aggrieved African American or a bickering pol.

That's the way it looked until the last day or so, in any case. What Obama demonstrated last night is that he's just as capable of imposing his own frame on the race. Each time he took a question about race or the recent bickering, he responded with his trademark uplift and forced Hillary to respond in kind.

Granted, the Clintonites were clearly ready to end the ugly skirmish themselves. But I got the sense there was much more happy talk than they preferred. If this becomes a contest to see who can be more unifying and high-minded, Hillary will have problems.  

I saw two specific moments when this dynamic came through last night. The first was on the question of the campaigns' respective surrogates. Obama was asked about a document in which his South Carolina press secretary had catalogued all the racial affronts Clinton and her surrogates had committed. Obama said he regretted it "not only in hindsight but going forward." He added: "[I]t is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign. And I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message... Now, there are going to be significant issues that we debate and some serious differences that we have... What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here [i.e., Clinton and Edwards] is committed to racial equality, has been historically."

For her part, Clinton also made the necessary statements about getting beyond divisiveness. But on the specific question of surrogates, she fell flat, saying she took BET founder Bob Johnson at his (highly implausible) word when he tried explaining away an obvious allusion to Obama's teenage drug-use. 

Obama was magnanimous and winning. Hillary was clenched and grudging. The comparison wasn't especially flattering to her.

The second relevant moment came toward the end of the debate, when Obama fielded a question about why so many African Americans drop out of school at every level. His response started off wonky and small-bore, focusing on early-childhood education and how the return on such programs is exceptionally high. But, before long, he was waxing eloquent about how the problem is a lack of resolve in the White House, not a lack of solutions. "[L]et's be clear," he said. "We have good answers for how to make these schools work. What we don't have is a sense of urgency in the White House." Then it was onto a winning riff about being raised by a single mother, and how education had been his lifeline. For good measure, he closed with a tough-love admonition to African-American fathers to take parenting seriously.

And Hillary? Tim Russert was set to move on when she flagged him to say: "This is what I've done for 35 years. We've got to do more to give families the tools and the support that they should have so that they can be the best parents. ... It's not only the family; it's not only the school system. We all have a role to play. "

Perfectly adequate stuff. But, as I say, a competition in uplift is not a competition Hillary wins. 

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:32 AM with 13 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!

ejbenjamin said:

Has any presidential campaign in the history of the known universe turned into a contest to see who can be more unifying and high-minded?

January 16, 2008 7:40 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Basically, Matthews is under tremendous pressure to prove that he doesn't hate Clinton/isn't sexist/etc. So...

January 16, 2008 7:54 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Something I haven't seen commented on, but that kind of floored me when I heard it. First question, on MLK, Hillary said, "The three of us are here in large measure because his dreams have been realized." Now, on the merits of whether the white politician's wife and the rich white guy owe any of their success in politics to the black civil rights movement, people can decide for themselves.

But Dr. King's dreams "have been realized"? Full stop, past tense? Really?

Hillary just declared the struggle for black equality and against white racism to be over. Does anyone else in the Democratic Party believe that statement to be true? Seems to me that statement is not just Mike Huckabee crazy, it's actually Freddie Thompson crazy, as in where he says that winter snow in New England proves that global warming is over.

January 16, 2008 8:03 AM

Eos said:

I thought Obama's comments that as a president he would be about inspriration and vision rather than about execultive leadershio and management of the executive functions of government were not what Nevada or national voters want in a moment of economic crisis.

January 16, 2008 8:22 AM

Eos said:

I also really appreciated the respectful tone that the candidates took to each other. It was, in my view, the first time Hillary had been treated respectfully by Obama and Edwards in a long, long time. It felt good. The atmosphere among all three felt good, like the national political community of democrats existed again.

January 16, 2008 8:25 AM

dcshungu said:

I did not watch the debate last night but listening to Scheiber discuss the "winners and losers", one would think it it was a beauty or congeniality contest.

Noam, do you have any idea who won last night on the issues, insofar as the moderator might have done the unthinkable and stirred the debate in that direction?

January 16, 2008 9:28 AM

virginiacentrist said:

dschungu:

That's just it. There's no difference between these candidates on the issues. They're all basically middle of the road Democrats.

January 16, 2008 9:48 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Virginiacentrist,

There was one area of real, substantive disagreement: Nuclear power. Which shows just how otherwise in tune the candidates are, when you have to look to nuclear power to find disagreement.

Hillary just happens to be in favor of building more nuclear power plants, despite the stunning coincidence that she's also raised more money from Dick Cheney's big-energy friends than any other candidates. Big shock that. Obama is in favor of nuclear energy, just as soon as new science that he hasn't seen yet clarifies his position on this 50-year-old question whose answers haven't changed since the Eisenhower administration. And Edwards believes that since nuclear power would only solve a little bit of the global warming crisis, and not solve everything all at once by itself, it's not worth pursuing at all, and anyway nuclear plants create nuclear waste, which he used to believe should be buried in Nevada but not anymore now that he's talking to an audience in Nevada.

As kind of ridiculous as each candidate's position on nuclear power is, together the Democrats covered the full spectrum of possible policies on building more nuclear plants: yes (Hillary), maybe (Obama), and no (Edwards). Spoiled for choice, we Democrats are!

January 16, 2008 10:28 AM

The Spine said:

Noam observes in his "Vegas Debate" on The Stump this morning that Hillary has "put her

January 16, 2008 11:00 AM

pzdavis said:

Obama scored a self-goal on the presidential management style issue. I was astounded.

He wants to offer "sound judgement" and a "vision." He just want to "spark debate" and "mobilize" and "inspire" but he doesn't want to trouble himself with the actual management of the country? He should get a job at a think tank or a university.

Vision and inspiration are important, but they're only part of thejob description. Being president of the United States entails running what may be the biggest organization in the world. If this is his idea of the job for which he is applying, the position should go to someone else.

I'm surprised there is so little attention to this, which I think it's terribly important

January 16, 2008 11:52 AM

titanio said:

pzdavis: I agree Obama could have made his point much better, and I also agree that it is something the average voter will not warm up to, no matter how it is made. But, I agree with Obama, not Clinton. HRC is repeating her 1990s health-care debacle. She thinks leadership means studying every issue better than everyone else, so that the correct answers will be revealed -- then it is just a matter of telling the bureaucracy (and congress)  what to do and making sure they do it. The notion that there might be resistance and even active opposition to her revealed best policy never seems to occur to her. Obama's perspective is that it doesn't really matter what a candidate thinks is the "right" policy, because it will never happen. Leadership means being able to command the political capital that will move the fuzzy set of possible outcomes closer to the principles and values that the candidate holds. Hillary is running for chief of staff, but Barack is running for president. That means articulating principles and values, then assembling the political capital needed to move the agenda toward them.

January 16, 2008 12:53 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 2:03 PM

The Stump said:

Mickey Kaus sees Obama getting straight-jacketed as "the black candidate" and offers the following

January 23, 2008 12:42 PM