I watched the Presidential debates last night off-and-on, intermixing it with watching some of the football playoffs. How is the citizenry supposed to inform itself with that kind of competing programming?
Anyway, the format was kind of interesting. For starters, it was a back-to-back debate with the GOP going first and the Democrats going second. So, that put the tone of the two debates in starker contrast. Second, there was kind of a roundtable format with all the candidates sitting around and some back and forth permitted. To me, it looked like the Republicans had their knives out much more than did the Democrats. By and large, it was Mitt Romney on the receiving end of those knives. I think Huckabee had the best zinger of the night. He had said something about Romney’s position and Romney took the occasion to admonish Huckabee not to characterize his position. Quick as a whip, Huckabee interjected “which one?” — highlighting Romney’s, shall we say, flexibility. In terms of substance, it seemed to me that the Republicans (except for Ron Paul) tied the albatross of George W. Bush’s foreign policy ever more firmly around their necks.
On the Democratic side, the candidates were generally more polite to each other. One thing that was evident was their exhaustion. They all did fine when they were actively speaking, but they all seemed to have that glazed look when they were watching one of the other candidates. That’s understandable given the pace of the campaign. As a strategic matter, it looked like Edwards had made it his goal to knock off Clinton and worry about Obama later. Stylistically, he was probably the most passionate of the candidates, really hitting his stride when the topic shifted to domestic economics. As a practical matter, I don’t know how much his debate performance helps or hurts him in terms of his efforts to get out of third place in New Hampshire.
Clinton’s gender puts her in a tough spot when Obama and Edwards gang up on her. Do too little and she looks ineffective and vulnerable. Do too much and, fairly or unfairly, she’s going to get tagged with the “shrill” card. She can’t really go with a strategy of claiming that “those mean guys are ganging up on poor little me,” because a) you don’t really want that in a President; and b) she’s campaigning as (and probably is) a tough person. Her most implausible gambit was the “35 years of change” mantra. To me that’s like claiming that four right turns constitutes a change of course. A couple of times, I felt bad for her because they were talking about how she looked or how likable she was in a way that was pretty well tied to her gender.
Obama didn’t make a particular impression on me. He certainly didn’t hurt himself, but I don’t think debates are necessarily his most effective forum. I think he’s more effective standing at a podium by himself making a speech. I think his best moment was when the moderator asked him something about the Republican debate and Obama confessed that he’d been flipping back and forth between that and the football game. He proved that he actually had been watching when he advised the moderator that the Redskins hadn’t been doing so well.
Bill Richardson was just along for the ride. It’s probably a failing on my part, but whenever he talks, I can’t help but think of Horatio Sanz from Saturday Night Live.
The part that got me the most was when Clinton was trying to get the mantra across that Obama’s words don’t mean anything. She tried this repeatedly and it was getting almost as annoying as Edwards being able to relate everything in the world to “working in the mill.”
I wrote up a little piece this morning to prove Mrs. Clinton wrong on my own blog if anyone cares: http://www.steelsphere.com/?p=591
Wait, wait, you mean Edwards’ Dad worked in a mill? Seems like he would’ve mentioned it.
I found the set-up excellent.. and one of the most interesting moments was watching when they were all on the stage together. McCain and Clinton in a small huddle.. Richardson and Paul looking fringe together. And Obama, Romney, Edwards kinda clustered together. At one point McCain leaned forward, like the old man he is, to hear better what Hillary was saying.
I agree with your analysis, Doug. It seems like the man to beat (up) was Romney. Good zingers all around. McCain may just beat him there, although he also seemed really old. Guiliani seemed like a shadow– which he will be after SC. Huckabee’s aw shucks won’t play in NH, but that’s just an appetizer for SC where he will probably win. Yeah, they’re gonna have a hard time breaking away from Bush’s legacy. But then Bush never cared for the Party, just himself.
The Dems — well, Richardson is running for VP and everyone can see that. He does have the Foreign Policy background, but he’d never make it as Pres– not inspiring enough.
I was shocked when I watched Edwards make a visceral decision to defend Obama and himself against Clinton. That was drama.
Best zinger of the night (albeit overly dramatic) was when Richardson claimed he’d seen less acrimony from some peace negotiations or some such statment. I nearly fell off my couch laughing.
Doug,interested in doing some prognostication??
I think the Richardson zinger was “hostage negotiations.”
Prognostication? Sure, don’t cost nuthin.
Obama wins New Hampshire, Clinton comes in a strong second, Edwards comes in a distant third. In the rest of the states, Obama wins by a significant but not crushing margin. Edwards wins a state somewhere. (I don’t have any particular insight here, I think I’m just predicting the pattern from the 2004 cycle).
For the Rs, I think Romney gets buried, Huckabee makes too many economic Republicans skittish, Giuliani is a self-parody, and McCain is the last one standing.
The Democratic nominee wins the general elections.
That and a buck might get you a mediocre cup of coffee.
wow.. you took the whole enchilada.. I’m just predicting one at a time.. but yeah, would be hard to see the Repub winning
I didn’t watch the Repub debates; couldn’t bring myself to do it. But I did watch the Dems.
I disagree with you on your assessment of Edwards. I’ve read that the guy drinks a tanker truck of Diet Coke a day. And I think it showed because when he would answer or reply to something, his train of thought was all over the place. Half the time, I couldn’t figure out what point he was trying to make. Plus he looked like Obama’s lap dog.
For Hillary, the biggest challenge is that she is a woman. If she were a man saying the same things in the same manner, we would call him tough and strong and willing to fight to the end. But with her being a woman, most want to call her a bitch or tie her attitude in with “that time of the month”. Which is unfortunate. And I really don’t understand why is that because you have experience, it automatically makes you the “status quo”. Personally, I like her and think she’d be great as President.
Obama, on the other hand, reminds me of Bill Clinton. He’s a smooth talker, he’s easy to listen to, he’s easy to look at, and he talks in grand ideas. He comes across as a good mitigator, bring the two sides of the aisle together. Like that would ever happen (pardon my pessimism). On the downside, I didn’t pick up anything concrete in his ideas. Other than change. Change is good. I’m change. She’s not. As much as Hillary is a turn off to many, I find his lack of respect towards her to be a turn off.
The big shock for me was how much I ended up liking Richardson. He’s not loud like Clinton. He’s not a smooth talker like Obama. But he is experienced. He’s got the executive experience as governor. He’s got the federal and foreign experience as Sec. of Energy. I liked his foreign policy talk. I liked his green talk. You are right, he does look like Horatio Sanz. But he definitely has the experience for the job. I doubt he stands a chance in a world where being the loudest wins you more 4 second clips on the nightly news. But after last night, he ended up being my favorite.
I agree that the Obama/McCain nominations are likely. Though not anywhere near as confident that Obama will be walking into that white house afterwards. (And, yes, I do hope I’m totally wrong.)
Interesting.
Don’t give me that bull-jive.