Final Thoughts On The Debate

** The press seems to be very keen about Clinton's answer to the dictator meeting question. Whatever "presidential" means to the press -- and it seems to be mean non-pandering, serious, grave and reflective -- Clinton's answer was very "presidential." Do those Democrats who watched the debate on television agree? And did John Edwards's solid answers on health care and Obama's strong finish dilute the effect of Clinton's great moment?

** Clinton's team uses her performance in these debates to argue that she's broadly acceptable as a general election candidate. That is, their take-away is more '08 oriented than '07 oriented. She's anti-big government, not a "liberal," aware of the tough challenge of leaving Iraq, etc. The amazing thing -- so far -- is that she can say all of this and still not have her Democratic credentials questioned.

** Barack Obama moves into his comfort zone when the argument is about change; when it's about strength and experience, Clinton (and Biden) excel. Monday night, the argument was about change, and HIllary was peppered with some hard questions, and if there is a disjuncture between the press's evaluation of Obama's performance and the voters' evaluation of his performance, it can probably be attributed a larger change orientation in the Democratic primary electorate. Focus groups conducted by CNN and Frank Luntz gave Obama the win.

** At the same time, Hillary Clinton, heir to a dynasty, evoking her husband's legacy, is judged by primary voters to be an agent of change. Perhaps Obama is more of a change agent, but perhaps Hillary is enough of a change agent -- she crosses the threshold -- to make her stronger argument, which is that she knows how to be president. The irony here is that the desire for change might be so great, all the Democrats cross the threshold and Obama has to go to greater lengths to portray himself as the true change agent. Ok, that's a lot of "change agents" for one paragraph, but this question really lies at the heart of the primary right now. If the biggest story of the Dem primary race so far is Clinton's ability to overcome the Iraq problem and present herself as a change agent, the biggest worry for her team is that voters who pay attention find themselves more inclined to Obama. Maybe this is where the hidden reservoir of Bush-Clinton dynasty fatigue lives.

** To some extent, Edwards and Obama advisers are frustrated that Hillary's experience credential hasn't come under greater scrutiny. They ask the question: when she was put in charge of something, did it usually fail or succeed? What specific decisions has she made? Is there anything more to her argument than "I can put together a government?" To no avail.

** Chris Dodd and Joe Biden were heavyweights. It's frustrating to them and their advisers that they don't get more credit for the good nights they had. As one Edwards supporter put it in an e-mail: "Ok, so why is it every time I watch one of these, it takes me an hour to remember why Joe Biden wouldn't be a good president?"

Comments

"The press seems to be very keen about Clinton's answer to the dictator meeting question. Whatever "presidential" means to the press -- and it seems to be mean non-pandering, serious, grave and reflective -- Clinton's answer was very "presidential." Do those Democrats who watched the debate on television agree?"

Absolutely not. Hillary's answer is basically what George Bush would say right now. She'll be ready to talk/negotiate when she knows the end result? Is that how Hillary thinks negotiations work?

Also, this "propaganda victory" line is especially worrying as it seems to be an echo of the smears on Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria. Whether or not foreign leaders score points at home should play a very minor role (if any) in the decision to engage diplomatically.

Obama's answer was emblematic of the fact that he is trying to appear as someone who would truly change our posture in international relations. Whether or not he would actually follow through is another question. But it seems clear that Hillary won't even pay this notion lip service.

Posted by Jerry Medium | July 24, 2007 9:43 AM

Clinton's answer was standard fare. obama's was phrased different so the chattering class is appalled.
The press are not listening to the Edwards or Obama campaigns on experience because they also ignore our asking the same things.
The press is in love with Hillary and won't challenge her on anything.
Her so called experience is her husband's. am I an engineer because my husband is? Same thing. Clinton's actual experience is 6 years in the senate and bad judgement.
Obama has 11 and good judgement.
speaking of, wasn't it the press who were so dazzled by Bush in 2000 and promoted him? So, I guess I can see why the press and bad judgements go hand in hand.

Posted by vwcat | July 24, 2007 10:19 AM

Thank you, Jerry! Senator Obama's position to have direct talks with Iran, Syria and N. Korea is consistent with what 3 former secretaries of state--Kissinger, Albright and Powell--have been calling for. Moreover, editorial pages such as the NY Times and former generals also have been calling for talks. And last but not least, the Iraq Study Group said talks are imperative. Hillary Clinton criticized Geroge Bush in Iowas justa couple of months ago for not having talks with these countries. But of course you're never going to hear all of this from the MSM and apparently not even The Atlantic.

Posted by Dawn | July 24, 2007 10:32 AM

This whining from Obama supporters about Sen. Clinton getting a free ride from the press is both absurd and unbecoming. First, but for the fawning press, there would be no Obama. Second, what the press wants here--what the press always wants in every election--is a close, competitive race. Its easier to cover, the story tells itself, and it sells more news. The press is, therefore, naturally inclined to favor Obama, the challenger, over Clinton, the frontrunner; they can't stop themselves. Clinton, therefore, is kicking Obama's tail despite the press--not because of it.

Posted by Dc Joe | July 24, 2007 10:36 AM

Why isn't this more of a story? Is it because Obama and Edwards themselves haven't directly asked these questions? It's a little astonishing, nevertheless, that she hasn't been challenged. Presumably, that's ahead.

"** To some extent, Edwards and Obama advisers are frustrated that Hillary's experience credential hasn't come under greater scrutiny. They ask the question: when she was put in charge of something, did it usually fail or succeed? What specific decisions has she made? Is there anything more to her argument than "I can put together a government?" To no avail."

When the questions are asked, what will we find? Her two biggest moments are lowlights: health care in '93 and the resolution vote in '02. Both MISTAKES, in case anyone's keeping score. This makes her ready?

Posted by Paulson Speder | July 24, 2007 10:37 AM

I was both incredibly impressed and thoroughly disappointed with Biden. I thought he was doing very very well until he insulted the questioner about guns.

Don't get me wrong; I agree with him on the issue. But its just poor form to flat-out insult the guy like that. You don't change any minds on the issue by refusing to even entertain the opposing side's point of view.

I don't think the press hates Obama or loves Clinton or loves Obama and hates Clinton. They just can't see the race through any lense but their own. They bring a ton of assumptions to the race, amongst them that Obama is young and up-and-coming and exciting, but also...young. That because they didn't know about him before 2004 he didn't exist before then and as such has no experience.

Same thing with Hillary. They think she's fake, programmed, put-on, whatever, but also smart, talented, prepared, experienced, and inevitable. All date about her and Obama are sorted through those filters. Everything that confirms them or fits nicely into them is going to stand out as hugely important to them. Anything that doesn't fit in and challenges their assumptions on the matter is going to be discarded as unimportant.

Of course, the American public doesn't share those assumptions, and as such, often doesn't read the same event in the same way.

Posted by Michael | July 24, 2007 10:50 AM

Hello,

It is very interesting to see all of the candidates mimic the stands that Barack Obama was owner of those ideas and the most qualified to materialize them. Let us see, point by point:

1)Experience: Obama answered the question of talking to Fidel Castro and the like with confidence that he can handle the situation with bold ideas and with ability to manuver the mine fields. By that way, Collin Powell and Madelin Albright Supported talking to ( Fidel castro and other country leaders who are against the US government) for long time. It is ludicrous to see some press pundits saying Clinton said it well. This shows She and some other senators are still living in the OLD WORLD of politics. WE NEED A NEW BOLD IDEAS --- they are OLD and OBAMA is NEW, and CHANGE AGENT!!!

2)TEH True measure of someones experience is when he or she applied those experiences to arrive at a sound judgment. If you see what CLinton and other senators did during Iraq War Authorization, despite they have "experience" in the government and some of them DEcades of experience, and despite with all the information they have at their disposal, they all failed to arrive at a critical decision to authorize the WAR. Which is a gross mistake and clearly shows they cannot arrive at a sound judgement, in the past, now and in the future. But, when you see Obama, time and again he demonstrated that he has good judgment and showed that he can arrive at differnet conclusion from the same problem. HE HAS BEEN consistently RIGHT about the war. Is is not a luck that gave him an edge. It is his experience living outside of USA to look at problems in different light, it is his wisdom and ability to synthesize problems that gave him and adge over these complicated problems. Folks, is it not the time you spent in washington that matters most, it is what you have done with it and your ability to synthesize problems that makes you a leader.

3) Obama is a uniter, not a divider. By crossing the line, Obama demonstrated that he can accomplish things in a fair manner. Where as the Old style politicians like CLinton would go down the path of infighting all the time, not getting enough majority to get things done. So, if the old guard is elected in the office, we will get more of the same, but In Obama's presidency we know that every one will have a chair on the table but one group will not buy evey chair. THIS IS what we need to get things done, in washington, not infighting.

Posted by Daniel | July 24, 2007 12:58 PM

How is Obama allowed to keep saying that he didn't vote to authorize the war? He wasn't in Congress until 2005, so nobody cared what he had to say back then. He surley wasn't able to cast a vote either way. At the time of the vote back in 2003, Obama was busy in IL trying to find out which new special election he could win. This guy doesn't have the experience to be President. What's there to point to? He hasn't tried to sit down and make changes or progress. Remember who ran against him too, Blair Hull (domestic abuse rap sheet) and Jack Ryan (sexual deviant). Obama is a political opportunist, far from stately. Remember his trip to Eastern Europe a few years back as a member of the Foreign Relations committee? I do, I was in Russia at the time, it was embarassing. The Senate delegation was held at an airport due to some miscommunication and Obama freaked like a little kid. It was no big deal and the delegation was on their way in no time. Obama loves to point to his diverse background (which is low level) but the guy doesn't stand a chance on the global stage. No foreign government officials take him serious. Let's get real. What leads people to believe Obama is ready for probably the most difficult presidency since WW2?

Posted by Joe | July 24, 2007 2:12 PM

I don't trust CNN or Frank Luntz to condfuct ofcus groups that are not PR. CNN's broadcast looked like an Obama campaign commercial. It was straight up PR. Obama is the corporate candidate of choice (witness his lower polls and big $$) He scares the hell out of me for that reason. He has no experience and will be a corporate frankenstein.

Hillary is a consummate politician and she was -- as all women must be when competing in a male field -- flawless. I don't love her positions. But she and Edwards too were fantastic.

CNN went out of its way to screw her. Alarm bells should be going off for Americans. But will they drink the corporate kool-aid again? Hopefully not, but the tone of these posts doesn't make me optimistic.

Wake up america.

Posted by milla jones | July 24, 2007 2:21 PM

Wake up America Senator Biden is the best candidate has the most guts in a time of war, the most experienced and is the only one that is willing to do something in Darfur... Semper Fi JOE BIDEN 2008

Hillary and Obama have sold us out.... Wake Up!!

Posted by MarineVet | July 24, 2007 2:48 PM

Milla,
You've got to be joking. You seriously think Clinton is not "corporate" but Obama is? Most of Obama's donations come from small donors. Hillary is the one who is relying on the big money donors.

Posted by Al | July 24, 2007 4:36 PM

Clinton and Obama are both "corporate." You think they got all that money withouth strings attached?

At the same time, we have a ton of problems in the world right now and we need a serious, experienced individual to take those on. Joe Biden for President all the way.

And Barack Obama saying yesterday that he is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy is simply laughable. Hoping that the electorate wakes up...

Posted by Jared | July 26, 2007 6:32 AM