The Debate: "Iowa Nice"

Iowans are nice, they reward nice candidates and they don't like confrontation.

Chuck Todd's take on this morning's Democratic debate is basically equivalent to mine, so, in an effort to save some paper:

Overall, this is a debate that had "August" written all over it, meaning the candidates decided not to take advantage of opportunities to engage. Instead, at almost every opportunity, the frontrunners took pains to NOT engage even when questions from the moderator tried to create spats. So in the absence of a "moment," it's hard not to declare Clinton the winner of this debate because, like boxing, if the champ doesn't get knocked out, then the champ is still the champ.

This is not to say Obama and Edwards did poorly in this debate. To the contrary, both seemed more presidential than in previous debates but neither seemed comfortable trying to take down the frontrunner. Edwards and Obama took veiled shots at Clinton but in a way that was, well, "Iowa nice."

One glaring missed opportunity for Obama to show contrast with Clinton came, not from a moderator question, but from a voter question who asked about a time when the candidate didn't say everything they thought. Remember, Clinton critiqued Obama for saying everything he thought. If the places were reversed, Clinton would not have missed an opportunity like that. This is where Obama's inexperience as a politician shows. He's just not very tactical, which to some may seem like a refreshing change but in primary politics, isn't a recipe for success. Frankly, it was a moment of political campaign inexperience. Tactically, these debates do show that Obama hasn't had many tough campaigns, which may explain why he misses opportunities like this one.

The MSNBC Iowa focus groupers seemed to disagree, BTW.

Comments

I think Chuck Todd tipped his hand here.

He says it was a Sunday morning in August, and no one really wanted to debate, presumably because they knew no one was watching. Yet he says Obama showed his innexperience because he failed to attack Clinton when he had an opening.

In other words, Chuck sees Clinton as an eternal attack dog who would never pass up such an opportunity even when only a few might notice, and Chuck also sees this as a positive attribute in a candidate.

Chuck is simply reinforcing the notion that politics needs to grow up beyond this second grade contest of who can get the better "your momma" joke in.

Posted by Paul | August 19, 2007 12:51 PM

Here is my ranking of how they did:

1. Edwards: He was very clear and eloquant. He used all the right words like lobbyists, change, equality, etc.

2. Hillary: She was sharp and crisp as usual but sounds like she won't be the one to bring a clear change.

3. Obama: Showed that he can bring change. I felt that he was not agressive.

So John Edwards won the debate.

Posted by Aaron | August 19, 2007 1:02 PM

Aron not according to the focus group. Both you and Chuck ( he usually is ) were wrong:

Most importantly in this particular form, voters in Iowa who sat for a Fox focus group responded overwhelmingly in favor of Barack. We'll start the transcript and continue after the bump:

Luntz: "Our respondents here have a very interesting reaction. How many of you walked in here backing Barack Obama as your first choice? Raise your hands."

[Few hands go up.]

Luntz: "How many of you honestly thought Obama won the debate?"

[Clear majority of hands go up.]

Luntz: "Almost everybody."

Luntz: "Now, you are not a supporter of his, but you thought he won -- why?"

Participant: "I feel that the first ten minutes of the debate was pile on Barack. They were attacking him and his comeback to it, about going to the fair -- practicing bumper cars to practice for the debate -- it immediately put the man in control."

Luntz: "So you liked his humor ..."

Participant: "He was sincere, he was comfortable with himself ..."

Luntz: "Christian?"

Christian: "I think he continues to demonstrate that he's got a nuanced approach to the answers and he understands that they are not easy and he is willing to look at all sides and involve that in his policy."

Luntz: "More than any other candidate?"

Christian: "More than any other candidate, and he's more precise with how he responds."

Luntz: "You also were not an Obama person but you thought he won. Tell me why?"

Participant: "I thought he was very relaxed and very honest and he seemed very open. Willing to answer any question straightforward."

Participant: "He seemed very sincere. I was disappointed in Edwards; I came in here as an Edwards supporter. And he just seemed too staged too not with it. Obama just seems to stand behind what he says."

Luntz: "Was that enough to change your support?"

Participant: "At this point, yes."

Luntz: "Did anyone else switch from who they came in here for?"

Participant: "Hillary ..."

Luntz: "Hillary to …?"

Participant: "I probably would say more Barack Obama now."

Luntz: "How many of you thought that she was the biggest disappointment of the debate, raise your hand."

Luntz: "Why? Did she not look presidential to you?"

Participant: "She looked very staged. She looked very cold and I was fairly disappointed coming in as a Hillary supporter. I'm not saying that it changed my view, but it did disappoint me quite a bit."

Luntz: "Tell me why ..."

Participant: "She came across as being very ... she was very outgoing and very in control but her answers were wishy-washy."

Luntz: "Great. That was -- you've got a clear winner here you've got Obama is the winner. Hillary Clinton is the disappointment of the debate. You know that every time that we do this there is a different answer, there is a different response based on the people that we have here at Des Moines University, but one thing is for clear, Obama is getting better and better as time goes on. The language he uses, the way that he presents himself, his use of facts and figures, he's becoming a whole candidate and I think you’ll see that in the polls in the coming weeks."
Weigh in with your comments below

Posted by Lyn | August 19, 2007 1:56 PM

Lyn,

The Washington Press corps are among the Washington insiders threatened by Senator Obama.

Posted by Dawn | August 19, 2007 2:26 PM

Chuck Todd's post is a classic example of MSM coverage of political discussions. What he's done is cover the coverage and provide spin based on that. There is no effort to engage the substance of what anyone said. It's all perception, which suggests either that he knows nothing about substance or that he doesn't want to bore people with substance. It makes me sick every time, and I feel sick a lot.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 19, 2007 2:27 PM

Lyn -- thanks for the transcript. As an Obama supporter, that's good news!

Posted by cms | August 19, 2007 2:30 PM

Iowans though Obama was the ***clear** winner in this focus group.

http://forum.sonshi.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=31067#post31067

Posted by Yiannis | August 19, 2007 2:39 PM

It seems as though Biden and Clinton are the only candidates who have their heads wrapped around the complexity of the Iraq debacle.

Posted by JoeCHI | August 19, 2007 6:33 PM

Joe, if Clinton understands the complexity of the Iraq debacle, as you say (I didn't see the debate) then she's been studying since the release of her amateurish plan for withdrawal.

Posted by Paul | August 19, 2007 11:19 PM

I agree that Obama missed a chance with his what did you not say response. But Todd takes that a bit too far. This did not make Obama the loser by any stretch. While I don't think Obama won, it strains credulity to say that Clinton did. He gave many substantive answers on many questions. It seems like the other candidates think he is the one to beat. It was a rooky mistake not to press for advantage on that question, but I think Todd needs to change his tack and stop assuming that Obama is completely clueless. to think he lost ground in this debate is to plainly underestimate him. we will see.

jcs

Posted by JC | August 20, 2007 1:46 AM

I have given up on Chuck Todd: he is just another purveyor of inside beltism. As for Luntz's focus group: another exercise is managed thinking. This debate with its time constraints never gave the candidates a chance to express themselves in other than platitudes (and for Gravel to show himself to be a self satisfied and preening fool). Some of the questions were ridiculous. just because someone asks a question a candidate should not feel the need to answer it. The one about God and hurricanes is just that kind. The candidates should avoid pandering to the likes of Geroge S who get to put on these shows for their benefit.

I say: time out. Give the candidates time to actually meet with the voters in situ. I support Obama 100% on his decision to use his time more effectively. these debates merely make time for Chuck Todd and his fellow spinner to increase their output of gas.

Posted by Alan | August 20, 2007 6:11 AM

So Obama lost because he didn't attack Clinton? And Clinton is the more experienced politician because she would never pass up an opportunity to tear down a rival? That's an extremely cynical view of politics, and I think it's a view that most people have tired of. Unfortunately, "most people" do not include Washington pundits; their insularity means they're the last to know about a change in popular opinion.

Of course, if Obama DID attack, all the pundits would pillory him from straying from his promise to elevate political discourse. So he can't really win with them. Fortunately, their votes count very little.

Posted by Fred App | August 20, 2007 7:59 AM

DONT U GET IT?.. Hillary and her team of jackals are a bunch of dirty power hungry mongrels willing to tear apart anyone who stands in their way or do not agree with them. Politicians just dont change. I still remember the time when she declared "If you are for others, then we will remember that". Just another version of scare tactics. Does any change come from these types. I hate to imagine that democrats want someone like this to be nominated. Infact I want to know who are the ones who tout her as best. If they are true to themselves, they know BIDEN or DODD has spent more years than Hillary. After all Hillary has just 1.5 terms as an elected official. BARCK has 2 terms as astate official and 0.5 term as a senator. Thats even more than her. WE all know about the dirty deals HRC made during her time in public service. I wish people can go and dig it out and compare it with Barack. Please thnk twice about her experience. SHE DID NOT EVEN READ THE DARN NIE before she voted. HOW RECKLESS CAN THAT BE. AND WE TRUST HER FOR HER "EXPEARIENCEA".
Lookat the debate:
OBAMA was fabulous. He gave a very presidential answer and also demonstarted the core of US philosophy in the answer regarding the IRAQ seperation. Even Biden, the expert had his jaw drop. Obama said, we should split but that decision has to be taken by the IRAQI's (reflecting on the value of freedom of expression which is a constitutional value). Nothing works out if we act as BIG BROTHER and breathe down others neck. He has the vision to see that. It was fantastic that no one even was aware of such things. I GOT TO GIVE IT TO HIM.
I think its time to take out Gravel and DODD. Dennis can stay becos we need voices to question the big dogs. The deabte appeared like a pack of hyenas attacking a lion. It appeared like an orchestrated effort from Hillary, Dodd, Biden to tear Obama but he stood his ground. I can see they shake when he brings up IRAQ.
I can understand their frustration. they must be thinking..Man..."who is this dude who comes from nowwhere.. while WE GREY HAIRED TRIED POLITICIANS HAVE PAID OUR DUES IN POLITICS" Thats what irkes them the most. They forget that JFK, Billy Clinton were all 45+/- 2 yrs when they became president. HRC canot stand Obama given his popularity and charisma. SHE HAS A MEDICAL PROBLEM. PATHOLOGICAL LIAR WITH AMNESIA. She can never accept defeat and thats why she will dance along biting her teeth to every scathing attack. Go OBAMA .. Shoot straight for the Oval office. The people are with you and prove to the DC "pundits" that you are smarter than they are.

Posted by Paul | August 20, 2007 11:39 AM

Actually, I thought Obama's response to the question was terrific, for he reframed it to incorporate a so-called Sister Souljah moment -- telling Detroit automakers publicly, to their face, that they need to raise fuel standards in their fleet.

After all the lies of the last 6 years, his message is, "I will tell even inconvenient truths." He reinforces this by not backing down from his comments on going after al Qaeda in Pakistan.

In other words, rather than playing this game on Clinton's turf, or the media's, he takes the ball onto his turf. This is called taking advantage of an opportunity, not wasting one! It was an excellent, well-executed tactic. No wonder the focus group thought he won the debate.

Posted by Sakitume | August 20, 2007 12:14 PM