Democratic Debate: First Take

Everyone had a good debate.

(Campaign pull-quote compilers, take note.)

But who did best? The audience is undecided Democratic caucus goers. Who stood out? Who was different? Who seemed most presidential? Who parlayed their strengths? Who gave people reasons to believe in the negative stereotypes about them?

On balance, Clinton and Edwards.... Why them, and not Obama? Because Clinton and Edwards repeatedly wove their answers into a larger argument, and Obama generally kept his answers to his answers. He did well though. No calls, Chicago. No calls.

Repeatedly, Clinton cast herself as a champion of middle class material concerns. “They feel as though they are standing on a trap door,” they said, and If you listened carefully, you heard her say that she would raise taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

Almost every other phrase out of John Edwards’s mouth contained the words “corporate power..” or “entrenched interests.” And Edwards wasn’t aggressive. He wasn’t angry Johnny. He was nice Johnny boy, although he did snip at the moderator at one point and couldn’t resist a jab at Bill Richardson.

Clinton’s opening statement was very strong and pointed.

“Everyone wants change. Some believe you get change by demanding it, and some believe you get change by hoping for it. Some believe you get change by working hard for it. That’s what I’ll do as president."

It’s a great line. But in saying this, she conceded that she was scrounging on territory claimed by Obama and Edwards. Also, Iowans don’t like lines. They like nice. Saccharine even. Pure rhetorical glucose, though, and not a sugar substitute.

Biden, Dodd, and Richardson. Exceedingly mature, gave folks on the fence about them a reason to keep liking them, but neither stood out enough to move too many votes. Richardson had some strong, early, detailed answers on balancing the budget (he thinks it’s feasible immediately, others don’t) and on budget priorities, and on education.

Biden turned a tricky question about his penchant for gaffes into a very good moment wherein
Obama personally attested to his hard work on behalf of racial justice. Iowa nice.

Say what you will about the format, the graphics, the moderator, the theme music, the staging, the stage lighting: every candidate had enough time to be strong, and every candidate was.
To the extent that it matters, Fox News’s dial group loved Edwards and not Hillary Clinton. (They also liked Obama.)

The Register’s editorial endorsement is set to drop on Sunday

Comments

Clearly John Edwards won the debate hands down!

Posted by Matt | December 13, 2007 3:25 PM

As an Iowan I hate it when people like Marc stroll in and say how Iowa likes "nice." As if you know Iowa that well Marc. Please. It's a little media myth just like how hard it is to caucus.

What Iowa likes is personality, intelligence and competence.

Wouldn't that be "nice"?

It was a great afternoon for Edwards and Obama.

Posted by Joe Justice | December 13, 2007 3:28 PM

Clinton, Richardson were steady.

Obama was low key but to the point.

Edwards was a perfect combination of positive energy and excellent vocabulary.

Dodd, Biden were ok.

I will not be surprised if Johny Edwards starts leading the Iowa polls after this debate.

Posted by RK, Columbus | December 13, 2007 3:29 PM

new HRC rumor: OBAMA FATHERED TWO BLACK CHILDREN DURING THE 90s

Posted by touie | December 13, 2007 3:30 PM

Edwards was the big winner followed by Obama and Clinton. I am pretty sure that even the Faux dialers would respond very positively to what Edwards said.

Posted by RossA | December 13, 2007 3:33 PM

With today's very strong debate performance by Edwards I have a feeling that he will win it all in the nasty fight between Clinton and Obama. He can now stay above the dirt and clinch it all based on his obvious strengths.

Posted by Debbie | December 13, 2007 3:38 PM

The Clinton Machine is such that the owner of this blog is planning to vote for it. Don't worry -- this is automatic. Everyone is for the Machine. It is truly a sad day for America when the Machine controls us. Have we not seen Metropolis (the movie)?

Support Obama. NOW.

Posted by eorse | December 13, 2007 3:39 PM

"Fox News’s dial group loved Edwards and not Hillary Clinton."

I flipped over to Fox and watched the Luntz group round-up:

Luntz's Iowa Dem voter focus group thinks Edwards won the debate in a fucking landslide.

They agree with Edwards' rhetoric and agenda, and they think he's the real deal to get it done. They buy his authenticity.

The focus group hates Clinton. Really, really hates her. Canned answers. Represents status quo. Used dirty politics over the past week.

They're warm on Obama, but luke-warm.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 3:46 PM

John Edwards cleaned HRC's clock today. Edwards was simply excellent in the debate. He has speaking skills and charisma like Bill Clinton.

I will take either Edwards or Obama over HRC.

Posted by wow | December 13, 2007 3:54 PM

I haven't been able to hear or see the debate yet. I am very happy to hear that many feel that Edwards did well, because I have been convinced that he is the candidate who will put together a 'change' election next November, and bring along the democratic senate and house candidates needed to make it a legislative reality.

Posted by JREalltheway | December 13, 2007 4:18 PM

It's unfortunate that Biden was feeling sick (it's the first time I've seen him so subdued). Joe normally has so much energy, injecting humor, wisdom, and perspective into the debates. I thought Edwards and Clinton did well today but I'm solidly in Biden's court and urge others to read more about him on his campaign website.

Posted by Liz from NH | December 13, 2007 4:21 PM

"Luntz's Iowa Dem voter focus group thinks Edwards won the debate in a fucking landslide."

The CNN Iowa Dem focus group reached the exact same conclusion.

They walked in undecided, and walked out:

39% Edwards
26% Obama
22% Clinton

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:21 PM

A CNN focus grouper says she doesn't think she can trust Clinton to keep any of her promises.

A couple of the Fox focus groupers went out of their way to say that they thought Edwards was trustworthy.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:24 PM

I've been trying to tell y'all, Johnny is a vote-getter.

He isn't even leading polls in his own state. Maybe because they know him.

If this bunch of pinkos is all the Dems have to offer the GOp will be in the white house for another four years.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2007 4:31 PM

I took time off from work to watch it and have to say I'm glad I did. It was civilized, intelligent and at some points enlightening. I am strongly for Edwards so can't offer an impartial assessment but I thought his answers all related back to his larger message and in the final moments, he really broke through his occasional tendency to smile and squint too much ..the answer about needing a president who feels, in his gut, the fight for ordinary people struck me as a memorable moment.

I was really stunned by how unappealing and even unprepared Clinton seemed. Even the pre-prepared 30 second intro was off-key. Nobody buys that the candidate who is literally a member of the first family got there because she worked harder than anyone else. Her strong suit was supposed to be her knowledge of the issues -- thats what won her the first few debates -- but she's gotten so far off message in trying to go on the offensive against E and O that she can't find her way back to her main point.

And when Edwards flubbed his line early on, she cackled so harshly that it made him seem easy-going, not snippy, when he said "you know what I meant."

Obama looked to me like a candidate on cruise control. I am not sure he believes what he said about not being afraid to lose. He's the front-runner now and the target is squarely on his back to perform up to expectations. I agree with Ambinder that while he did fine, he didn't do anything to speak to those who might be undecided and tuning in to find out whats all the excitement about.

Posted by Gus | December 13, 2007 4:33 PM

I want Obama, I'd be happy with Edwards or Biden. But please, for the love of God, no more of the Bush-Clinton Presidential oligopoly. Let's turn a new page and put the venom behind us.

Posted by Dan | December 13, 2007 4:33 PM

Ahem!

"Also, Iowans don’t like lines. They like nice. Saccharine even. Pure rhetorical glucose, though, and not a sugar substitute."

Saccharine IS a sugar substitute.

Posted by The Metaphor Police | December 13, 2007 4:39 PM

Obama clearly presented insightful answers in a spontaneous, well reasoned and very presidential manner. After watching this debate you know you can trust him to lead this country wisely, and work toward bringing people together to get things done. Edwards used all the right hot-button words to get people to react emotionally, but was a bit too repetitive, lawyer-like, and adversarial, promising conflict, not solutions as president. Hillary just fell flat with her feeble attempts to jab, and pander to women with waist line problems. Others all seemed worthy of being candidates for president. A low key, but informative debate.

Posted by robby10001 | December 13, 2007 4:39 PM

Hillary was strong, decisive, confident and, as always, the most Presidential.

Her answers on energy and trade were spot-on. And her line about "working" for change, instead of demanding it or hoping for it were completely accurate. I am growing increasingly tired of John Edwards fist-pounding repititious rants about corporations and lobbyists. You know, after awhile it just becomes like background noise.

Posted by Caprice Devoe | December 13, 2007 4:43 PM

Most of those writing here seem to be supporting democratic candidates. I'm obviously for Edwards at this point. Are all of us getting tired of being called "pinkos" because we believe in standing up for a fair shake for working Americans, for a sane and universal healthcare system, and for an environmental and energy policy that begins to help get us off our dependence of middle eastern oil and working to enhance conservation efforts and alternative energy sources. This is good for our country, good for all Americans, and the right thing to do.

Posted by JREalltheway | December 13, 2007 4:44 PM

"Edwards used all the right hot-button words to get people to react emotionally, but was a bit too repetitive, lawyer-like, and adversarial, promising conflict, not solutions as president."

That's one that doesn't match up with the two focus groups of Iowan Dems in the least....

"Hillary was strong, decisive, confident and, as always, the most Presidential.,,,I am growing increasingly tired of John Edwards fist-pounding repititious rants about corporations and lobbyists. You know, after awhile it just becomes like background noise."

That's that is an utterly opposite conclusion from the two focus groups of Iowan Dems....

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:48 PM

You were called pinkos because the Dem party has become beholden to uber leftists who want to turn America into the vision they have in their heads of a utopian socialist paradise.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2007 4:50 PM

Obama won the debate. He provided and communcicated his vision of where American should be going now and in the future. He seemed more honest than the other candidates and is a man who can be trusted to represent American at home and abroad. He will bring the respect and dignity American lost through a clumsy and close minded Bush administration the last 8 years. We do not need another Bush or Clinton in the White House; Internationally and especially, we Americans do not need a divider such as Clinton in the White House! We need OBAMA to lead all Ameircans.

gonz

Posted by gonzalez, g | December 13, 2007 4:51 PM

Actually, you all are kind exaggerating about the Fox focus group. The majority came out saying they would caucus for Obama. Almost all of them said that this performance made them think even more highly of him. They liked Edwards' focefulness and his promises to take on the special interests. But in the end, the majority raised their hands to caucus for Obama.

Posted by TS | December 13, 2007 4:52 PM

I'd say Edwards did the best... I thought HRC was average at the very best and I'd say she came somewhere in the 3rd-5th range

Posted by GreenGuy | December 13, 2007 4:53 PM

Do others feel that Steve doesn't want to face the coming national debate on the substance of these important issues, so he resorts to name-calling? It is my distinct feeling?

Posted by PrettyinPinko | December 13, 2007 4:54 PM

I am surprised that Marc didn't say it, though it was obvious.

The debate was a triumph for Mitt Romney!

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 13, 2007 4:58 PM

John Edwards rocked in the debate. No wonder that CNN and Fox focus groups thought that Edwards won the debate in a landslide.

Posted by Erwin | December 13, 2007 5:08 PM

Do others feel that Steve doesn't want to face the coming national debate on the substance of these important issues, so he resorts to name-calling? It is my distinct feeling?

MMM did you happen to see who won the congressional elections in VA and OH this week?

The Dems cannot win the presidency without OH and OH just went GOP this week. Not good news for you guys.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2007 5:14 PM

This is election is about real change and based on today's debate it was clearly Edwards who offered most solid changes. He showed that he can stand up to lobbyists and big corporations, thus offering real change.

The CNN poll also shows that only John Edwards destroys all republicans with wide margins.

Posted by IowaDem | December 13, 2007 5:22 PM

I still believe HRC/The Clinton Machine will win IA (and NH and SC).

BUT, What if?

Edwards win IA, Clinton wins NH, and Obama wins SC?

What happens then?

Support Obama! NOW.

Posted by eorse | December 13, 2007 5:29 PM

What I meant is that (assuming my prediction HRC victory in IA/NH/SC as absent for now):

What if?

IA: Edwards win (Obama, 2nd; Clinton, 3rd)
NH: Clinton wins (Obama, 2nd; Edwards, 3rd)
SC: Obama wins (Clinton, 2nd; Edwards, 3rd)

Will Edwards endorse Obama and together they form a unity ticket in the primary (for general) and make Hillary concede defeat?

Does Obama have a chance after SC? Or, is it HRC/The Machine taking over after SC? Today's LA Times (12/13) has HRC quoted as victory will be hers starting Feb. 5.

What do you all think?

Posted by eorse | December 13, 2007 5:33 PM

Lol, that's funny, Marc. I didn't see the debate so I have no frame of reference, but basically what you wrote sounds like Obama came in third in the debate because he answered the questions, instead of spinning his answers in different directions.

Huh. Who would have thought just answering the questions well wasn't enough, lol.

Posted by Paul | December 13, 2007 5:50 PM

Another Soviet-style debate that apparently didn't feature any discussion of immigration matters. That's the area where the Dems are weakest and a little spirited question would reveal the huge gaps in their policies.

The MSM can't hide from a real discussion of this issue for long. Eventually people are going to start going to campaign appearances, asking the questions the MSM is afraid to ask, and then uploading the responses to video sites.

Posted by TLB | December 13, 2007 5:51 PM

Edwards won with the group that counts: voters!

He will be a great president!

Posted by Oscar | December 13, 2007 6:14 PM

I sometimes get the sense Clinton could strangle a puppy during a debate, and people like Ambinder would say it showed she was tough and that she did it in a Presidential way.

Posted by DTM | December 13, 2007 6:14 PM

I believe American need someone with integrety like Obama to lead us. I am tired of Clinton-Bush administration.

Posted by Inno | December 13, 2007 6:24 PM

Steve appears to be stuck in 1982. Or '72 . . .

Posted by JUICE | December 13, 2007 6:43 PM

As for: "If you listened carefully, you heard her say that she would raise taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals." I think, if Hillary wins in November, you'll find out that this depends on a careful parsing of the meaning of the word "would". As in: "Oh, I would have done that, but my focus groups and polls and political consultants are against it."

Posted by David | December 13, 2007 7:37 PM

steve appears to be stuck in the '50's. At a HUAC hearing. Have you no shame, steve? At long last, have you no shame?

Posted by ebd | December 13, 2007 7:48 PM

Something tells me things are beginning to stir for Edwards. Wouldn't it be something if he either won or nosed out Hillary for second, and she finished THIRD? Could happen. If so it then becomes Edwards vs. Obama.

Posted by Code 55 | December 13, 2007 8:29 PM

I didn't see the debate, but from all the coverage, only one thing seems to be remembered: Obama snapped a cackling Hillary by saying he was looking foward to her advising him. Regardless of the "weaving answers into a larger argument" argument, people remember soundbites and that one was a hum-dinger. Obama won. Check the polls next week. He's well on his way.

Posted by Evan | December 13, 2007 8:42 PM

Obama was extremely dissapointing! seems to forget what he is saying while he's saying it?? I think they call that " Burn Out"

CLINTON WAS OUTSTANDING ONCE AGAIN!

Posted by joi | December 13, 2007 9:24 PM

Most of you are wrong. Most of the Fox focus group clearly stated they would caucus for Obama.

Here's the link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdaROq57qsg&feature=user

Posted by Bobby from NC | December 13, 2007 9:38 PM

Why no mention here of Kucinich and Gravel not being heard? They would have sharpened things up.

Posted by peggy | December 14, 2007 1:10 AM

There's simply no doubt in my mind that Frank Luntz, the Republican party's absolute tippy-top spinmeister, could get a focus group to say they would caucus for a ham sandwich if he wanted to. The only question I have about the Fox focus group is, does he want to? I'd tend to be less leary of the CNN group. Any enterprise that includes Luntz should be considered tainted until proven otherwise.

Posted by CalD | December 14, 2007 1:38 AM

HILLARY WAS OUTSTANDING ONCE AGAIN IN THE DEBATE! obamaboy was very disappointing, looks like he has nothing to offer when oprahs not around. He seems to forget what his point is while he’s struggling to make one? he is nothing without the oprah hype... This guy is no leader...black people will vote for obama just because oprah said so and mentioned Dr. King, oprah time came 25 years ago, she is one of the wealthiest woman in the world, what more does she want? SHE IS SICKING AND GROSS! TUNE HER OUT AMERICA

Posted by JOI | December 14, 2007 8:26 AM

If this bunch of pinkos is all the Dems have to offer the GOp will be in the white house for another four years.

Whistling past the graveyard, Steve?

Seriously, this from a guy who supports the party that is about to nominate Huckleberry?

Posted by Pug | December 14, 2007 9:04 AM

Now, now Bobby from NC, let's not rain on Petey's parade. There's no need to bring facts into this. It's not like anyone here expects him to be honest in his shilling at this point anyway...

Posted by J.B. | December 14, 2007 9:19 AM

Hello America,
Here's the wake up call I am not a Edwards
fan and I am a parent of a American son and I was raised by 2 wonderful Republican parents but after hearing John Edwards I must say he makes me feel like a American parent and he respects the love I have for my son Jacob! Yeah John you won my vote!

Posted by Sonnie Crawford | December 14, 2007 12:47 PM

Obama seems like a little boy that is telling the world what he wants to be when he grows up.

Posted by jose | December 14, 2007 7:24 PM

"he is nothing without the oprah hype..."

:-). I remember reading through 500+ posts at Huffington Post about how Oprah wouldn't help Obama one bit, instead she would hurt him.

The difficulty for the Clinton campaign is that she has had to switch from her A game to her B game. Inevitability's no longer working, and I'm not sure what to call her back up strategy.

Posted by Carrington Ward | December 15, 2007 12:15 PM

I just wonder if anyone takes inot account that a woman or a minority has no chance of winning the election in the fall of 2008. I am not saying this as a racist or bigot. I would vote for whoever I think is the best candidate. I just wonder if the rest of the country would do the same. I have to say no. My fear is the republicans will win by default of the dems nominating a minority or woman.

Posted by T. Smith | December 15, 2007 6:13 PM

Edwards is the only candidate truely commited to changing the many wrongs in this country. This country has been turned over to the wealthy corporations. A quote from Eisenhower's farewell speach:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

If you haven't read the whole speach before, I suggest you take the time. Vote Edwards.

Posted by Justin | December 15, 2007 6:45 PM

Incidentally, I was in that focus group. It was organized by Frank Luntz in NEW YORK CITY, Not in Iowa. Fox News misrepresented us (i.e. LIED), and Luntz allowed it to happen.

Posted by KC | December 18, 2007 11:49 AM