Iowa nice replaced by New Hampshire ice? Naw.
Fireworks did not pop; differences were laid out politely, for the most part; there was little interrupting and even some friendly joshing between Clinton and Obama.
Obama had a broader voter focus than Clinton. She wants – and needs – Democrats to turn out; he wants, and needs, independents AND Democrats to turn out for him on Tuesday.
Iowa victor Obama had a target on his back, but he’s acquired a Kevlar vest as a frontrunner.
Like Clinton tonight, he was unflappable. Voters at these late days tend to favor the calm, cool, collected candidates who don’t sweat under pressure, who don’t stutter or seem flustered. He patiently rebutted charges about health care, his fip-flops, his uniqueness as a change agent.
Some of the rebuttals seemed effective, some didn’t.
Clinton seemed to be trying to do two things. One is to try and pry away voters who want change and like Obama but who are concerned about his experience. If just enough of those voters switch to her, she could win New Hampshire. The other was to try and blot out the halo that’s surrounded Obama ever since he won Iowa. The messages are a little paradoxical: he’s just like one of us Democrats (who supported single payer at one point) but .. at the same time,
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic agent of change. I think Clinton handled the substance of her
offensive fairly well. She did not hector Obama or inject unduly extraneous adjectives; and perhaps she’ll succeed in getting reporters and voters to start asking Obama a little more about his record. At best, the headline Clinton gets out of the debate is that she questions Obama’s qualifications… so long as the headline isn’t “Clinton on the defensive” or “Flailing Clinton
Assails Obama,” then she left the museum in the same condition it was when she entered. Clinton’s theme was accountability: “I think it’s important that we’re all held accountable.” Obama, she said, voted in favor of a 2005 energy bill larded with special interest subsidies. And she made this argument: “Words are not action. As beautifully presented and passionately felt, they are not action. What we need to do is to translate thought into action and feeling into reality.” She also got to make an argument that works for her but has been overshadowed a bit: being the first woman president is great.
Richardson had his best night; passionate statements on Iraq and the economy; on how “Washington bickering” leaves all the problem-solving to the governors; the format allowed him plenty of time. He may be leagues behind the frontrunner, but if this were the Iowa caucuses and second choices mattered, he’d be peachy.
No demerits on style, but I found it hard to pay attention to John Edwards. Maybe it’s the New Hampshire orientation and the fact that the economy has been transformed here and that, unadorned populism doesn’t work as well here, or maybe it’s a function of my having assumed the press’s desire to winnow this race, but Edwards’s shtick seemed kind of shtick and as comfortable as a wet sock. A sock that got wet wading through the snow and ice in Iowa and, at the end of a long journey, needs to be laundered.
| 
This is the best you can do to spin it in Clinton's favor? I'll admit, you got a tough job and alot of nerve, but come on. You, sir, are insulting the intelligence of all of us when you make comments like, "Hillary Clinton is the Democratic agent of change. I think Clinton handled the substance of her
offensive fairly well." The least you could do is admit she got mad and attempt something like "oh, it made her look strong blah blah blah." You might want to just sit out the rest of the primary season, pal.
Posted by JFK Dem | January 5, 2008 10:52 PM