First Thoughts: The Dem Debate

I was tempted to call this encounter a draw but I am mindful that there are no zero sum debates in presidential politics.

And twenty minutes of Iraq happened. And so I’ll give Obama the edge. Clinton was forced, for about 20 minutes, to recapitulate her vote on Iraq, over and over again. It was tough for her. She seemed to mire herself in the details of history.

Obama came into the debate moving up in polls across the country. His presence was, for the first 45 minutes or so, commanding. His opening statement was pitch perfect, segueing from praise for his rivals to the heart of his message. He ably made his case that this is a change election and the trajectory of change is steeper with Obama. His late-in-the-debate answer on Iraq was much better than hers.

Around 50 minutes in, the momentum swung towards Clinton. Obama was put on the defensive by Wolf Blitzer, who tried to goad him into calling Hillary Clinton unprincipled. Clinton, ah, found her voice, managing to show sympathy for undocumented workers and simultaneously pointing out how she took the effects of illegal immigration more seriously than Barack Obama. Clinton, in seeking a bipartisan solution, sounded more like Obama than Obama. Clinton’s answer plays well everywhere: among Latinos in California to conservative whites in Oklahoma.

I think Clinton’s goal tonight was to essentially humble herself before the Democratic Party that rebuked her so profoundly in South Carolina. Substance and niceness and graciousness were the order of the day. By her own standards she succeeded. She still doesn’t have a good answer to the dynasty question. I hear it a lot from voters on the trail. “We are all judged on our own merits” is a tautology.

Surprise: the time limits helped both Clinton and Obama. She had the time to turn every question back to her credentials and her projection of a humble, expansive, gracious character… she had the time to showcase her unmatched policy depth. Obama, who often chafes at soundbite answers, was able to speak in paragraphs and parentheticals and not have it count against him.

A few thoughts:

**Clinton mentioned John Edwards thrice, Obama mentioned him twice, but he also mentioned Bill Richardson, so, they’re equal.

** Also: Someone seemed to have planted the idea in Obama’s mind that he ought to start taking on John McCain, which he did, effectively.

** Obama really gives a great answer on the war, talking about the mindset differences between himself and Clinton and stressing the need for a date certain. He’s found a way to create daylight between himself and Clinton on withdrawing from Iraq.

** Watching the debate from the perspective of a Democrat, it’s easy to see why the party is so enthusiastic about its two candidate finalists.

Comments

Marc, great as usual, but twitter - oh man, not good.

Posted by david m. | January 31, 2008 9:53 PM

What a debate! It was simply great. Both cadidates looked presidential, they talked policy in and out flawlessly. This was in complete contrast to republican debate from yesterday where they only talked about some stupid and irrelavant stuff. The difference between two debates was like day and night.

Democrats were debating for the presidency of USA while republicans were debating for presidency of Banana Republic.

Watching Obama and Hillary debate, even an independent voter like me has started feeling proud to be an American.

Posted by Proud American | January 31, 2008 9:53 PM

Why do I have this feeling, we will lose if it isn't either an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket?
I just can't put my finger on it.

Posted by tarkman | January 31, 2008 9:55 PM

Hillary cleaned his clock. She sounded natural and informed.

Posted by JFK | January 31, 2008 9:57 PM

One little disagreement with you. Clinton's answer will play well with Latinos ?
Hum. No. Clearly clearly not. It may not be good general election politics for him to talk that way and he certainly will not win hearts among blue-collars in the Midwest but HER answer will certainly sway some Latinos to him.

Otherwise a draw which in my world is a good thing for him because all he needed was to show he can talk equal to equal to her therefore assuaging his major liability about whether he is ready.

Posted by Benjamin | January 31, 2008 9:57 PM

Perfect debate. Both were excellent.

To Republicans, bring it on - your fake conservative, super old, war mongering candidate who wants to continue wars for 100 more years.

I am excited. Any of Democratic candidate will simply destroy McCain. Bring it on baby!!

Posted by Walker | January 31, 2008 10:00 PM

I'm hardcore Obama, but I have to say I agree with the "embarrassment of riches" sentiment. I feel much more amenable to a Hillary Clinton White House than I did yesterday, so she won in that sense... or perhaps I should say the Democratic Party won tonight.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | January 31, 2008 10:04 PM

Ditto. Last night's debate was like a glimpse of three dweeb Young Republicans playing dress-up at a Ronald Reagan memorial party. Unbelievably vapid, meaningless answers (with the exception of Ron Paul, who actually knows the Constitution) and a contest of who has the biggest boner for war. Insane.

Hillary and Barack looked like the real deal tonight. Adult, realistic, intelligent, civil, committed, serious, human. If they can keep this up, and not tear each other apart, McCain has no chance in November.

Posted by tinisoli | January 31, 2008 10:04 PM

Boring debate. As a conservative, I see plenty of issues where the two are weak.

Posted by Andrew | January 31, 2008 10:05 PM

I think that the Iraq portion really swung the debate his way too. I think HRC came across very very well and I think she helped repair a lot of the damage she did going after Obama in South Carolina.

I think that the depth of her policy knowledge shone through, but Obama held his own and looked presidential too.

I think he won latino votes and I think he helped himself with Iraq voters and the McCain argument too.

I don't think he helped himself much with pocket book voters, however. Then again, mandates don't poll well so maybe he did?

Posted by Rhoda | January 31, 2008 10:06 PM

I'd call this debate a draw (benefit to Obama on Iraq, but people are, unfortunately, not paying that much attention to it nowadays). Which works out to Obama's benefit, since I think the status quo momentum was moving his way.

What the debate did do was transform me from wondering if I'd vote McCain over Clinton to rooting for an Obama/Clinton ticket. If their egos are big enough for them to fit together.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 31, 2008 10:07 PM

I'd call this debate a draw (benefit to Obama on Iraq, but people are, unfortunately, not paying that much attention to it nowadays). Which works out to Obama's benefit, since I think the status quo momentum was moving his way.

What the debate did do was transform me from wondering if I'd vote McCain over Clinton to rooting for an Obama/Clinton ticket. If their egos aren't so big that they can't fit together.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 31, 2008 10:07 PM

It was Democratic brand that won today. It was a perfect contrast with republicans. Completely agree with the comment by Proudamerican.

Posted by ramon | January 31, 2008 10:10 PM

I think that Obama just won the debate and Hillary just lost the nomination. Why?

(1)Dynasty question – They planted that little nugget in the minds of voters before Super Tuesday. I noticed that after Hillary got that question, she sounded very tentative. She’s worried about how voters are processing that question. I think that if they both do well in the debate, it is the dynasty question that will DAMN Hillary in the minds of voters that want change.

(2)Iraq – They got Hillary on the war vote, the name of the Iraq resolution which clearly was about authorizing use of military force (she says it was for “diplomacy”), the fact that she voted against the Levin amendment, and the fact that she won’t just say the vote was wrong.

(3)Bill Clinton – Hillary couldn’t control Bill on the campaign trail and can’t control him on the White House.

Obama made no mistakes and had his best debate performance yet (rock solid, presidential). Although Hillary answered the above questions to the best of her ability, I think the above questions will prove problematic for Hillary in the minds of voters. I am so happy tonight. OMG.

Posted by sue | January 31, 2008 10:13 PM

Marcy Marc!!!

please find some video of Obama's smack down of Romney. That was F-ing amazing!!!

Posted by Paul | January 31, 2008 10:13 PM

obama hands down

aside from the substance - he projected the confidence of a leader whereas as smart as Hillary is she always has to "prove" she is the smartest person in the room

If you really believe you are - you don't have to monopolize the conversation

Would like to know how much time each spoke --
seemed like Hillary spoke more -- but could be an illusion

Posted by barbara | January 31, 2008 10:13 PM

obama hands down

aside from the substance - he projected the confidence of a leader whereas as smart as Hillary is she always has to "prove" she is the smartest person in the room

If you really believe you are - you don't have to monopolize the conversation

Would like to know how much time each spoke --
seemed like Hillary spoke more -- but could be an illusion

Posted by barbara | January 31, 2008 10:14 PM

I'm a big Obama supporter, to the extent that I get nervous for him, much more than he ever seems to get. (Also, I get Clinton nausea on a fairly regular basis.) But I must say, Hillary was winningly magnanimous. If I had dropped in from outer space to watch this debate, not knowing anything about these candidates, it would be hard to understand why so many have negative feelings about her.

Both candidates were very likable and effective. I doubt this debate changed much of anything. Hillary helped her likability and presidentiality (word?); Obama seemed to help himself on the Iraq War and Latino issues.

CNN's questions laid a lot of different traps for both, and both deftly avoided all of them.

Posted by Ban Johnson | January 31, 2008 10:16 PM

Andrew,

You are of course right as a conservative, and I agree to some extent (I am dreading how much govt. is going to grow in addition to the growth of the executive branch and the war machine and deficit spending we already have now) but, the Republican candidate will be weaker still. like the people here are saying, compare this debate with the republican battle.

Posted by sv | January 31, 2008 10:17 PM

Obama just doesn't do his homework. Rove is right, he comes off as lazy.

Posted by JFK | January 31, 2008 10:18 PM

Obama was substantive and presidential. He showed dems why he could take on McCain better than Hillary. HIllary was defensive much of the might. She also gave a lot of unclear, rambing, senatorial answers. Obama was crisp and presidential. Obama did a great job of drawing contrasts without making Hillary have a "ganged-up" upon moment which could backlash to her benefit. I think the fact that commenters are talking about how warm they were to each other helps Obama because it makes it harder for HIllary to play the victim card. I think Obama really won the debate on the issue of Iraq where he was clear and showed how he could go toe-to-toe with John McCain.

Posted by RKA | January 31, 2008 10:18 PM

These people who want Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket seem to me not to understand the differences in the two candidates for how government should work. Obama has seen the power of bottom up government. The Clintons believe in top down. How do you put those on the same ticket?

Posted by AYC | January 31, 2008 10:20 PM

Agree with sentiments above that this was a win for Democrats in general and a BHO/HRC HRC/BHO ticket in particular. Going in to tonight, I was very anti Clinton, leaning slightly Obama. After tonight, I would be happy with either choice. And if we could get both at once, so much the better.

Posted by drjimcooper | January 31, 2008 10:23 PM

I feel Senator Clinton was the stonger candidate. I didn't like Obama repeative referance to the war, because we know many good dems voted the same way with the info. they were given. Her answer has been and was clear, but he repeatively brought it up rather than talk a plan. He was not able to vote....what would he have really done, we don't know.

Posted by Ben | January 31, 2008 10:28 PM

I feel Senator Clinton was the stonger candidate. I didn't like Obama repeative referance to the war, because we know many good dems voted the same way with the info. they were given. Her answer has been and was clear, but he repeatively brought it up rather than talk a plan. He was not able to vote....what would he have really done, we don't know.

Posted by Ben | January 31, 2008 10:28 PM

Is anyone watching Olbermann right now?

Memo to Mark Penn: You should do some polling on whether or not viewers find you repulsive when you are seen and heard on TV, and if that repulsive effect hurts your candidate.

Posted by tinisoli | January 31, 2008 10:30 PM

Why do I have this feeling, we will lose if it isn't either an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket?
I just can't put my finger on it.

Posted by tarkman

Tarkman: The gop has not won a Presidential Elections without illegal tactics since 1988.

It's there only chance.

Posted by Langx | January 31, 2008 10:30 PM

Obama won this one. Why? Simple. It was a substantive tie but the two have different test. Voters like and trust Obama but don't know if he's ready. On the other hand folks think she's ready but don't like or trust her. A tie on the substance leaves him ready and her no more likable or trustworthy.

Posted by David | January 31, 2008 10:36 PM

Obama won the debate because Hillary Clinton refused to admit that her vote to authorize force in Iraq was a mistake. She tried to dance all around the fact that she made a mistake. She would have been better off just admiting that the vote was wrong as others have. By not doing so, she appears to be stubborn and inflexible. We already have a stubborn and inflexible leader. We do not need another one. Additionally, all Obama had to do was not to make any big mistakes because with Clinton we know that we are going to get another Dynasty as well as Billary. The fact is that there just is no way to control Bill Clinton. Having the two back in the White House would be circumventing the constitution.

Posted by Jane Thomas | January 31, 2008 10:38 PM

Obama won the debate because Hillary Clinton refused to admit that her vote to authorize force in Iraq was a mistake. She tried to dance all around the fact that she made a mistake. She would have been better off just admiting that the vote was wrong as others have. By not doing so, she appears to be stubborn and inflexible. We already have a stubborn and inflexible leader. We do not need another one. Additionally, all Obama had to do was not to make any big mistakes because with Clinton we know that we are going to get another Dynasty as well as Billary. The fact is that there just is no way to control Bill Clinton. Having the two back in the White House would be circumventing the constitution.

Posted by Jane Thomas | January 31, 2008 10:38 PM

All in my house were shocked and horrified at Hillary's rambling on Iraq. She ended up so far from the question that the second time she rattled on-were you naive-- my son said she sounded like Miss Teen South Carolina in her answer about maps! Everyone agreed. And in view of the responses to debate, I guess everyone else has grown accustomed to her LAUGH when she is in a fix. Obama seemed much stronger.

Posted by JD | January 31, 2008 10:38 PM

Overall, an Obama win - the first half was even, which helped him since healthcare is supposed to be her issue. The second half saw her shipping water on Iraq for 20 minutes, plus the dynasty question. More important, Obama managed to go after the Republicans nicely, which can only help him with the base. I'd say that given how debate is supposed to be his weakness, this came over as a win in enemy territory, which might well help him push a bit further towards evening things out on Super Tuesday.

Posted by maraschion | January 31, 2008 10:44 PM

Bill Clinton was overheard in a fancy Hotel screaming "HILLARY STOP TALKING ABOUT IRAQ!!!!!!!"

They spent the better part of two years clouding her and cozying up to Obama on Iraq only to have him demolish her Iraq argument in the most important debate in the most important moment of the campaign.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | January 31, 2008 10:47 PM

Hillary played to the crowd, who loved her anyway. Not bad, but too cute and canned to someone who doesn't like her much.

Obama played to everyone. Restrained, classy and strong. And randomly clever (as opposed to Hillary's "Clinton to clean up a Bush" crap).

Obama wins. Obama wins. Obama wins.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | January 31, 2008 10:49 PM

Ok here is my verdict:

Hillary wins a Gold medal
Obama wins 2 Gold medals
Democartic Party wins 3 Gold medals

Everyone won today except republicans. Republicans sound like they were found in the doping scandal way before the race even started.

Posted by Rush | January 31, 2008 10:57 PM

For the first time in this long campaign season, I can say that Barack Obama won this debate. I've personally been waiting for him to have the kind of debate performance that he had tonight: he appeared sharp, like at the time he was able to refute the argument that 15 million Americans wouldn't be covered under his plan... he clearly tried to match Clinton on policy details. In that respect, he cut into her "experience" argument. This has been an issue that Senator Clinton has clearly "won" over the course of the campaign season, but Senator Obama showed a reason as to why people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss him on policy matters.

His answer for illegal immigrants was also a strong point for him. Democrats often cannot come up with cogent reasons as to why illegal immigrants aren't the worst thing to happen to this country, and he was able to articulate his point well, citing scapegoating.

And on Iraq, of course, he dominated. Democrats should not have to settle for Senator Clinton's position on the war. For the past four years, this issue has been at the heart of the discussion, and it is the reason why Democrats won in 2006, so Senator Obama appears strong whenever he touts that he was the one who opposed the war.

Senator Clinton did a great job when asked what her experience really was-- she had her moments.

But, as I said before, this night was clearly Obama's.

Posted by Natascha | January 31, 2008 11:00 PM

Yes, this was a major win for Obama because he was able to put the focus on Iraq and really dominated. His statement that we need to change the mindset that got us into Iraq was a great way of applying the lesson of IWR to the future.

Posted by Mike | January 31, 2008 11:03 PM

Too bad, I didn't get to watch the debate but it was interesting reading these comments.

I urge those of you still undecided to read Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" - even the chapter on the Constitution was riveting. It really gave me insights into his character, intellect, respect for American institutions (like the Senate) and his very diplomatic but direct approach to tough subjects like race.

Posted by Jamie | January 31, 2008 11:04 PM

By what factor does one have to divide the Obama support visible on this blog to get something approaching his support among the Super Tuesday electorate? ;)

I made a checklist yesterday for my man:

1. Debate: Win +1 Tie 0 Lose -1
2. Bill Richardson: Endorsement +1 No Endorsement 0 Endorses HRC -1
3. Edwards: Endorsement +1 No Endorsement 0 Endorses HRC -1
4. Gore: Endorsement +1 No Endorsement 0 Endorses HRC -1

Total up the numbers for the score. If he gets a 0, he rides his current momentum to a Super Tuesday too close to call. If he gets into positive territory, he wins. And if he gets into negative territory... he's lost.

Remember, there are just four media cycles between today and the big day.

I think the debate was a tie. So far, the score is 0.

Any endorsements coming?

Posted by lampwick | January 31, 2008 11:30 PM

yawn. i doubt this debate (in name only) swayed on voter.
p.s. I thought they were going to start making out at one point.....

Posted by JR | January 31, 2008 11:32 PM

yawn. i doubt this debate (in name only) swayed one voter.
p.s. I thought they were going to start making out at one point.....

Posted by JR | January 31, 2008 11:32 PM

We loved the debate at my house tonight and just as people who love obama think he won, we both thought Hillary came out sounding and looking better. that is inevitable.

What is so striking is that Obama is now sharply at odds with hillary haters who are on his bandwagon. He likes her. He said so many times. A united party. They are friends. They agree on most things.

We know from reading this site that he doesn't lie and that he doesn't pander and so we see that he respects her and could support her and agrees with her much of the time.
thus we learn the haters here might have to abandon Obama. We know he wasn't understating, overstating or triangulating because we know from so many on this site that he doesn't do such things.

Do you folks like her now too? Has his respect for her and his leadership in this area lead to a transition or change in the thinking of the folks here?

It will be facinating to see if he can lead you folks from negativity and derision and hate:
we are one party: I do really like obama and his beautiful family but I love the clintons more:
and I want my daughter to grow up in a country where half it's citizens don't have to take on faith that they might grow up t be president: that like Emily dickinson said: [we] dwell in possibility.

Posted by Michael C. | January 31, 2008 11:35 PM

Oh god, she used that cry voice again and you guys are falling for it...what is the def. of insanity?

Posted by Eh? | January 31, 2008 11:38 PM

Clinton's answer on "scapegoating" Latinos for inner city economic woes will cost her a few points in California. I bet it's from page news on La Opinion in Los Angeles tomorrow. That answer and the reemergence of the drivers license issue won't cost her the whole Latino vote, but maybe it helps to move a few points to Obama's column. And that might be all Obama needs to take the state.

Posted by Callimaco | January 31, 2008 11:41 PM

Marc you missed in the begining how Obama hinted at the origins of the housing crisis (see Glass-Steagal Act).

Posted by Eh? | January 31, 2008 11:41 PM

My Case For Barack Obama

The best reason for the Democratic Party to nominate Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency is that he generates extraordinary turnout at the polls among two demographic groups that have traditionally under-performed; youth, and African-Americans. Younger people are voting in the Democratic primaries at three times the level of prior years, and most of their support is going to Obama. The numbers for black turnout in 2008 far exceed previous years, and I think it is reasonable to expect that the participation rate of both youth and African-Americans will increase even further in the November general election if Obama is our nominee. The hotly-contested 'swing' states of Ohio and Florida both have significant concentrations of minority voters, and Obama's presence at the top of the ticket will likely put both of them in the Democratic column.

If we take the Democratic base of liberals, enviros, labor unions, and the various other progressive constituencies, and add in a huge youth componenent, plus millions of newly energized black voters, plus the rapidly growing Latino consituency..... Voila! We have the recipe for a tidal wave that has the potential to make the Democratic Party the dominant political institution in this country for the next century and beyond. With Obama's ability to inspire voter turnout there are also favorable implications for all of our downticket races, from the White House through the Congressional contests, the Governorships, State and County offices, all the way down to local municipal races. We have seen many close elections in recent years that would have gone our way with stronger turnout.

There is no equivalent scenario on the Republican side; their 'big tent' is already in tatters, and they simply cannot produce the sort of turnout that Obama can. And whatever her other qualities might be, Hilary Clinton does not attract huge numbers of previously disenfranchised voters into the pool the way Barack Obama does. The Obama campaign raised a spectacular $32 million in the month of January alone, and he has received powerful endorsements from many of the most visible and respected Democratic politicians, which will lead to further endorsements, and an enhanced ability to raise money down the stretch. 90% of Obama's donors have given less than $100, which tells us that the Obama movment has populist roots that translate into real votes.

After eight years of Bush and Cheney, the GOP is struggling to raise money and its members are disillusioned. Many of their sitting Senators and Representatives have chosen not to run again. The prospects for a Democratic takeover of Congress are encouraging. This is not the time to do the Republicans a favor by nominating the one candidate (Hilary) who pushes their buttons and who would surely serve as a lightning rod for right wing organization and fundrasing. We should also be aware that the corporate media have a well-documented love affair with John McCain, and their bias would be a powerful weapon against us should Hilary be the nominee.

If Hilary Clinton were to be elected President and serve two terms, it would mean that the Bush and Clinton families could boast of an occupant in our White House for thirty-six consecutive years, beginning with Reagan's first term in 1980 and stretching until the year 2016. The sequence would look like this: Bush / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton. Enough, already. We are not a 12th-century monarchy.

The end of the Bush-Cheney era will be a beautiful thing to behold, but I think we ought to aim higher and leap at the opportunity to have a transformative, once-in-a-millenium election that significantly alters the voting dynamics in this country for the long term, and Obama offers us that chance. The Republican strategists who are looking at the electoral landscape for the coming decades ought to be shaking in their boots, and we are damn fools if we don't seize the moment and make the most of it. There is some contrast between our two candidates on the issues, but the principal difference lies in Obama's ability to dramatically expand the base demographic for the Democratic side, thus winning the general election in November and reducing the Republican Party to a quaint irrelevancy for the forseeable future.

Posted by Global Yokel | January 31, 2008 11:44 PM

Lampwick, those endorsements are important, but if Obama gets all three, look for Hillary to play the "ganging-up-on-me" card again!

Posted by Tractarian | January 31, 2008 11:49 PM

They both pander to the Illegals and Hispanic. Too frickin liberal. There is no America left to give away folks.

What about the rest of the freaking country?

McCain is no better. We are sick to death of these illegal freeloaders.

No amnesty...NONE.

The only one left will be Romney, at this rate.

Posted by BorderPatrol | January 31, 2008 11:58 PM

I thought both Clinton and Obama were successful in this debate--each was able to make a strong case for her/his own strengths. We were allowed to get a clear look at what distinguishes the two candidates from each other, honestly and without the distractions of needless and unproductive (usually contrived) conflict--not that Wolf Blitzer didn't TRY. (What a blockhead.) Fortunately, neither candidate took the bait. Bravo for them!!

I don't know about you guys, but I (a voter) felt much more RESPECTED than I have ever felt during one of these debates.

Posted by Laura in Austin | January 31, 2008 11:59 PM

Obama won because he looked Presidential.He was at ease, and he's just plain more likeable. He didn't give Hillary anything which which to play the victim role.

Posted by rikyrah | February 1, 2008 12:03 AM

Finally, it hasn't been since 1992 that I am honestly enthusiastic about the potential candidate from the Democratic party. After this debate I am in a quandry over who to vote for, both seemed sincere, intelligent, thoughtful and full of good solid ideas to help our country get out of the quicksand George Bush has mired us in.

Posted by donna | February 1, 2008 12:07 AM

On a twin ticket, don't fool yourself. I think Obama's answer was "It'll be a cold day in hell." Hillary knows if she somehow finagles the nomination she HAS to put Barack on the ticket, or the base will absolutely revolt. I have spoken with many blacks (esp. black women) that say they will NOT vote for Hillary after SC.

Maybe this debate helped, maybe not. I think she's a lock for HHS secretary, as one of the CNN commentators put it.

Edwards has clearly earned the Atty. General in either administration. I think Obama's best bet for veep is Bill Richardson. Jim Webb would be an excellent Sec. of Defense.

Posted by Michael Blackburn | February 1, 2008 12:13 AM

Lampwick, those endorsements are important, but if Obama gets all three, look for Hillary to play the "ganging-up-on-me" card again!

Let's just hope she doesn't start crying again...

Posted by J.B. | February 1, 2008 12:14 AM

It doesn't matter if Obama won on a debate stage he hasn't and won't win Hispanic votes. The votes among whites is split down the middle between the two. As he proved in SC he can sweep the blacks. When it comes to Hispanics he has no traction. The Southwest and Cali will do to Clinton. The South will go to Obama. They'll split the rest of the geographic locations.

Sadly for him there's more delegates in the Southwest.
By the end of it all HRC will squeak out a win to become the Dem nominee.

Posted by Paatrick Bateman | February 1, 2008 12:17 AM

OBAMA won this debate hands-down. i tuned out a little because i got so sick of the wolf blitzer bias in favor of hillary. it's sickening. and PLEASE, to any people who think that the dems would be better off with either candidate, THINK AGAIN!!! a vote for hillary is a vote for a republican. the nation and the party cannot win with this you-know-what in office!! DON'T BE MISTAKEN. she's the same conniving, talking through both sides of her mouth, race-baiting thing that she was last week (and even earlier today). OBAMA 2008 or look forward to more republican nonsense. hillary can't win, nor should she. enough of the clintons!

Posted by caligirl | February 1, 2008 12:19 AM

If HRC voted for the war after she viewed the intel report, then I'd be ok.

But she didn't even look at the intel report, I have a friend in military intelligence around that time, he read the report when it first came in. He clearly sought that report to be fake and made-up.

But i guess Hillary is probably too smart to tell that report was fake before she voted for it.

I'm all for Obama

Posted by Jing | February 1, 2008 12:25 AM

Michael,

Really? Edwards as AG? Wouldn't the AG need to have experience as a prosecutor? Just wondering.

I was kinda thinking he would be a shoo-in for Labor Secretary. We need a really strong Labor Secretary and a strong, legitimate NLRB.

Anyway, I agree with you about Obama not showing enthusiasm for Hillary as a running mate...I'm doubtful. But I guess stranger things have happened.

Posted by Laura in Austin | February 1, 2008 12:26 AM

The question that should have been asked of Hillary tonight is this ...

"Ma'am, your husband's presidency was marked by scandals running from the salacious to national security, you've run a campaign based on race coding, and both you and your husband have scant regard for the truth.

"What could you possibly say to young people, what could you possibly bring to the table, for those who need to hear a message of honesty and integrity, as personal responsibility is the cornerstone of government accountability?"

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Posted by MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | February 1, 2008 12:31 AM

Wow, Paatrick Bateman (sp?)! You almost sound like Pat Buchanan when you speak of the influence of racial/ethnic divisions.

I don't know if you're right or not -- but I have to say I certainly hope you aren't. I'm hoping the election results will reveal that we're not as divided along racial/ethnic lines as we used to be.

Posted by Laura in Austin | February 1, 2008 12:32 AM

I thought initially that Clinton came off as more likable, but midway in the debate, when she was talking about Iraq and couldn't admit her mistake, and just droned on and on, and ON and ON in that harsh, grating voice, I found myself praying she wouldn't win so I wouldn't have to listen to that voice for four years. That shrill voice that just likes to hear itself talk to fill the time. Clinton would be an awful person to be seated next to at a party -- full of herself, talking in circles, saying nothing while filling space. Spacey and formless as the clouds.

Her shrill and exuberant Florida "victory" speech for . . . zero delegates . . . reminded me of Charles Foster Kane violently clapping alone in the opera balcony after Susan Alexander's miserable stage failure. The Florida "victory speech" mixed wide-eyed delusion with a squashed ego desperately attempting to reinflate itself, even if the final spectacle was so pathetic that this observer didn't have the heart to even laugh. Her inability to admit her Iraq mistake was just like her inability to face her own limitations, with humility, after South Carolina. Instead she put on a dog and pony show for the cameras in Florida. Just pathetic.

Obama did manage to get in a small zinger in when he mentioned that weeping woman at a town hall meeting, then turned to Hillary and said, "You probably have experience with this yourself." Ha ha! Another reason I don't want her to be president. Say what you will, presidents really need to show composure and probably shouldn't cry on camera when they're having a bad day.

Posted by Trilby | February 1, 2008 12:33 AM

I am mindful that there are no zero sum debates in presidential politics.

Don't you mean that all debates are zero-sum?
If it helps Barack, it hurts Hillary, right? They can't both win. Not that that precludes it being a draw, in any case. Zero plus zero is zero.

Posted by Christopher M | February 1, 2008 12:33 AM

One of Obama's strongest debate performances so far. I enjoyed the debate a lot.

Posted by Will | February 1, 2008 12:34 AM

i was just getting ready to shut down this computer for the night when i read TRILBY'S post. i couldn't agree more!!!! spot on. obama '08.

Posted by caligirl | February 1, 2008 12:37 AM

I hope Obama doesn't take the VP slot on a Hillary ticket if she wins. He'd be nothing but window dressing, since Bill would be her de facto VP and running mate anyway. She might as well name a sack of dog-doo as her running mate, because everyone knows it'll be Bill anyway. I also couldn't see her (and Bill) playing second fiddle to him. I'd say he's more likely to take it than her, but I still wouldn't want to see it.

Posted by Steve | February 1, 2008 12:42 AM

Overlooked so far by the media: Hillary pointed out how the Republicans are going to attack Democrats on national security issues and how she is ready to handle that debate. That was the key impression I got from the talk about Iraq. She would not have kept talking about it if she didn't have a point to make in her favor there. It is something for voters to think about. How is Barack Obama going to win an election against John McCain, how is Barack Obama going to convince the public that he should be commander in chief, based on the argument "I made a speech against the war in 2002"? I just can't see him standing toe-to-toe with McCain on national security issues or convincing the general public when he talks about a plan to get out of Iraq. Hillary kept talking about Iraq, specifically bringing up McCain's remark where he accused her of waving the white flag, to make the point that she was more than capable of taking on McCain on those grounds and winning. Can Obama?

Also, how is Obama going to win an election against any Republican if he supports giving drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants? The GOP will destroy him on that.

Posted by d g | February 1, 2008 12:43 AM

Give me a break.
You can't cheerlead the fact Obama got 80% of the Black vote in SC and then claim race shouldn't play a part anywhere else in the nation. With immigration and by extension low skilled labor at issue taking the side of one demographic means alienating the other. That is a reality. If Obama wants to portray himself to African Americans as the person who will best serve their interests it be noticed by other minorities struggling for a place at the political table. There's only so much room at the bottom.

Posted by Patrick Bateman | February 1, 2008 12:48 AM

Global Yokel,

I agree with you that this point in time presents us with a great opportunity to grow the Democratic Party, and Obama does attract a lot of "new" blood to the progressive movement. I don't know if we'll be able to bring about a Democratic realignment for the whole next CENTURY, but I admire your optimism!!

I think a lot of people in the Democratic Party are sitting up and taking notice of Obama's appeal to "new" voters--not just the young ones, but also the previously apathetic, moderates, and disaffected Republicans. It's exciting!

Posted by Laura in Austin | February 1, 2008 12:49 AM

The winner tonight: Brand Democrat. The Republicans look very small and unserious in comparison.

I think Olbermann's 'looks like a ticket' line is telling, though that applies more if Clinton gets the nom than Obama. You have the odd quirk that the electoral mood for drawing a line under the last 20 years of politics may still lead to a McCain-Clinton election.

But I also agree with Ezra Klein: Hillary Clinton is much better than the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 1, 2008 1:04 AM

Laura,

Thanks for your response. I've long felt that the we've had the potential to bury the Republicans if we could just get our act together and unite the various constituencies that make up the Democratic Party. The math is on our side big-time. The GOP has enjoyed some success in recent decades based on a combination of lackluster Democratic candidates, the events of 9/11, a corrupt and biased Supreme Court, and with a healthy does of election fraud tossed in. But they don't have the baseline numbers to draw on that the Democrats enjoy if we bring out our troops.

The Republican 'big tent' is a fragile affair, as you can only keep the coalition of gun nuts and supply-siders and racists and snake handlers and homophobes together for so long before they start clawing each other's eyes out. We're starting to see signs of this already.

I'm tired of the petty back-and-forth that examines the tedious details of Obama's policy positions and contrasts that with the minute aspects of Hilary's positions. That stuff misses the forest for the trees. Because of his unique ability to drive voter turnout, Obama presents a chance for us to re-arrange all the deck chairs in one smashing November moment, and I hope that our Party is smart enough to recognize the opportunity.

Posted by Global Yokel | February 1, 2008 1:16 AM

I truly wonder. Will voters who are unwilling to vote Hillary nominee in primary, settle for voting for Hillary in the general if the ticket becomes Clinton/Obama?

Yes, Jamie, The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama breaks down politics and Washington governance into very palpable, informative, and even thrilling narratives. And look on the faces of the Americans from Iowa to S.C. and beyond to whom he has brought Civics in Action 101 through his soaring oratory, brilliant mind, brilliant stategy, brilliant leadership, brilliant campaign. . . .

Even Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton, no! Hillary Clinton cleaning up after Bush? Really! Hillary Clinton could very well drag an Obama nomination down! Turn the page! No dynasty in any shape or form!

(Hillary's response that president is a "lonely" office was glib and empty reply to the dynasty question.)

Posted by Hope | February 1, 2008 1:18 AM

Patrick,

I respectfully disagree with your premise that "taking the side of one demographic means alienating the other." I don't think anybody is really interested in jealously guarding their own piece of your conceptual "only so much room at the bottom." I think everyone who is at the bottom is interested in (1) having a "bottom" that's much less unattractive, and (2) having a chance to move up from the bottom.

That said, learned habits of thinking along racial/ethnic divisions may continue to influence voters' attitudes. We shall see. My hope is that learned habits become unlearned, and that our society is evolving beyond that.

Posted by Laura in Austin | February 1, 2008 1:31 AM

Global Yoke... you are right on the money. I've been voicing the exact same sentiments and I've been hoping that people could see this wonderful opportunity we have here. This is America's chance to tell the world we are not the country the past administration has made us appear to be.

An Obama presidency would represent an extreme shift away from the ideals of the far right that have destroyed our standing in the world and our mindset here at home. It would represent the "true" realization of the founding principals of America and our belief that in a free and democratic society anyone can achieve the best we have to offer. It would show that we have finally matured and become the place and people we always say we are.

We had a great opportunity after 9/11 to begin a campaign of peace and prosperity. The world was on our side, but our current administration and their greed led them to take advantage of the situation for selfish means and turned the world against us. Then we sealed the dealed by keeping these criminals in power.

As you mentioned, it's also the best chance we have to expand the party base. The Republicans will ralley together to fight against the Clintons, but against Obama they loose, even their own. There's just too much baggage with Clinton. A Clinton presidency will bring more of the same grid-lock and partisonship we've been living with since Regan. Obama squashes this with a broad new and youthful base and mentality to suit.

Please take the step to make true change for the better.

Posted by djhuiti | February 1, 2008 1:33 AM

I'm always terrible at judging these things and am usually out of step with what the majority think, but even as a very passionate Obama supporter, I thought Hillary did a much better job. He seemed a bit nervous up there, especially in the begining....towards the end he came back a bit, but overall she did a good job.

COME ON AL!! Where's Obama that endorsement?

Posted by Ryan | February 1, 2008 2:22 AM

I'm not sure about the Iraq exchange. I'm sure the netroots liked O's answers. What about voters who backed the war in 2003? Yes, they want out now, but how do they feel when Obama implies they were dummies. I don't know, I can only imagine their mindset. But Iowa is over. They're not pitching to MoveOn anymore. Clinton speaks for Bush's Security Moms and Joe SixPack: there was a reasoned judgment; we weren't right, but we weren't complete idiots either. Maybe they needed to hear that.

Posted by whoframedrudy | February 1, 2008 2:50 AM

It was clear that Clinton won the debate. Obama needed to win overwhelmingly. Clinton simply had to seem friendly, likeable and as more of a uniter. For every zinger Obama tried whether it was licenses, war, judgment, she pushed the unity theme and got him to agree with her. On his shot about bridge to the past, Clinton answered with how good that period was for America. She was even able to raise the stakes, show how important this change would be and subtly make the case that experience is necessary to create change.

As you can see from the above posts, no uber supporter moved, however the Obama supporters did see Clinton as much more likable and less divisive than advertised.

Posted by Rajiv | February 1, 2008 3:49 AM

I disagree that Obama's swipe at Hillary for her stance on Iraq was a swipe at Americans for also not realizing right away that the war was a bad, hasty decision. Don't we want a president who is smarter than the average person? So many of us got swept up in what Obama calls "9/11 fever" and he's exactly right. We were being fed lies, for sure, but we were also terrified and incredibly sad over what had happened, and on our turf. I think any average American citizens, who have busy lives and don't have time to watch CNN all day, can certainly forgive ourselves for whatever support we had for the war before the truth came to light. But in our leaders, the ones we're supposed to trust to make the hard, complicated decisions, why should we be offended that they are smarter than the average joe? We should prefer it. No offense, but that kind of apathy and disdain for our leaders is exactly what Obama has been fighting against, and Hillary too, both with great effect. People are starting to give a shit again. Obama has great faith in the intelligence and potential of the American people, and when he points out that he was opposed to the war from the beginning, he is highlighting the fact that he has not just good judgment, which cannot be denied seeing as how he was exactly right, but uncommon foresight as to how changes made in the government will unfold and affect the country once they are put into effect. The nitpicking at the fine details in their plans really don't mean a damn thing. The president doesn't make decisions domestically anyway, they are made by Congress. But they need someone with Obama's uncommon foresight and uncommon judgment to guide them and inspire them to make smarter decisions based on what the people need, not party politics.
I was not always a fan of Hillary before this debate, but there's no doubt she's incredibly intelligent, ambitious, passionate and experienced. I have been impressed, for sure, but to address a previous post, my newfound respect for her has certainly not pulled me away from Obama. I think either one of them could bring the change they both talk about, but if we look at the big picture, the question of who will be a more effective LEADER, Obama is the clear choice. I am, however, confident enough with Hillary that if she wins the nomination, she will get my vote.

But if we're looking for a president that our grandchildren will be studying in their history books many years later, Obama is the real deal.

Posted by anniekc | February 1, 2008 3:50 AM

Well as an independent who will probably be voting Democrat this year...

I'd have to say for the most part it was a draw. Clinton scored points on health care... but she lost some by not explaining what the penalties of not having her plan would entail.

Obama scored a few on immigration... but lost some when Clinton commented on job loss due to immigration being a valid concern among African American workers. Up until that point I would have called it a draw.

However

Obama did some major damage on the war issue... as it pertains to which Democrat will be the most CREDIBLE against a Republican in the general election. I'd have to say I'm more comfortable with a candidate who can make a credible case against the war... having been against it from the beginning... than one who has to repeatedly explain why she voted for it... and we know the war will be a major talking point in the general election.

He also slammed her, and quite vigorously, with his observation that her years of experience did not yield good judgment... and good judgment is the reason why experience is so valuable is it not?

His line about the importance of not only being ready on day one but being RIGHT on day one as well was masterful... not to mention true.

She skillfully nailed her own coffin, (while snugly inside), by tactlessly plugging her town hall meeting as if it were a new CD on sale Tuesday at the local walmart. I thought that showed her to be a typical politician... and just downright sneaky.

As of today... I think I'll go with Obama.

Posted by Tommy | February 1, 2008 4:35 AM

I thought Hillary's demeanor and likable nature was able to mask the fact she tossed out 3 pretty mind boggling comments tonight,

1. "I want to freeze interest rates for five years." Ummm what cracker jack box did that economic playbook come out of? And here I thought the GOP mantra of tax cuts being the solution to everything was going to be the most asinine economic suggestion we'd see this campaign.

2. "then they (Illegal immigrants)will not be in a labor market that undercuts anybody else's wages." Put aside her continued effort to make sure race is injected at every opportunity (using an example that just happened to pit Black vs Latino), and focus on the fact that this doesn't hold up to the facts. Numerous research studies have come to the conclusion that overall, illegal immigrants don't have a big impact on U.S. wage rates or unemployment.

3. "(Saddam) was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden." Wow the Bush backers must be jealous that someone was so brazenly trying to pass this off as a reason to vote to go to war. A statement so breathtakingly misleading and factually challenged it's beyond insulting to try and peddle this nonsense to the Democratic base.

Posted by dwightkschrute | February 1, 2008 4:54 AM

What is most remarkable is how Obama has risen in stature with each appearance of late. There is no question that, despite national polling, Obama entered the debate as the presumptive favorite--as indicated by the audience response. You could even see the admiration in Clinton's eyes--I suspect that she has not met an adversary with this verbal ability to tack and adjust with such insight and subtlety.

I think the race is Obama's to lose--in the absence of a dirty little secret, all too common to such phases of a campaign:

xpatriatedls.blogspot.com

How ironic is it that Clinton should find herself in the "Nixon" position of a Kennedy-Nixon debate--perceived as (if not actually) the relative upholder of mainstream traditionalism in the face of reformation.

Posted by Remarced | February 1, 2008 5:59 AM

Barack Obama's Health Care is the Same Universal Health Care offered by Hillary but with one Major Difference: You Have the Option of Choice! Do you want to be forced to pay for medical insurance like you are mandated to pay your auto insurance now? Or would you rather have the option of CHOICE --to be able to decide whether or not you want to buy your medical coverage at this time? This way Barack Obama's plan does not put another mandated cost, like auto insurance, on the backs of the people, especially the young who already have college costs to contend with. However, the coverage is always there for you, if and when you need it.

Posted by Angellight | February 1, 2008 6:58 AM

Obama wins on Iraq, but that's not the hot issue anymore. Where was the economy in this debate? Too much time spent trying to stir up a shout-fest.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 1, 2008 8:40 AM

It was interesting to see the look of fear on Bill Bennett's face after the debate. He kept carping about how rudely he was greeted by someone in the audience and about how Obama lost the debate because he failed to deliver the 'knockout blow'. But what really bothered him was that both Democratic candidates made the Republican candidates look like dwarves. In fact, the big loser in last night's debate was CNN. No surprise there.

Posted by JJ | February 1, 2008 9:01 AM

dwightkschrute,

Thank you for paying attention to the details of Clinton's statements. So many folks express admiration for mastery of details, but no one seems to be focused on the details themselves. I'm glad that I was not the only won who caught her attempt to exploit Black and Brown tensions. It was a right-wing move. Thus far, only anecdotal evidence supports any argument that illegal immigration is contributing to African American unemployment. I wish Obama had said that the exponential rise in Black male incarceration during the Clinton Administration has a lot to do with it. And this is who Latinos consider a friend to their Community?

Posted by Dawn | February 1, 2008 9:11 AM

I don't trust Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Alex K | February 1, 2008 9:12 AM

McCain's folks watching this debate have surely concluded that this format is the only debate format that seems to work for Obama. If Obama gets the nom, I predict all general election debates will have the candidates separated and standing at podiums. Obama does not do well in that structure.

Posted by Joe | February 1, 2008 9:41 AM

Joe - without making any predictions about the general election as a whole, do you deny that either one of the candidates we saw last night would wipe the floor with McCain in a debate, whether they are standing or sitting?

Posted by Tractarian | February 1, 2008 9:43 AM

Interesting that so many people think Obama "won." Yes, he had good answers and looked Presidential, but polling after the debate showed that 60% of undecideds broke for Hillary after the debate - essentially, Hillary persuaded more undecided voters than Obama did. Why? I think that Hillary has always been the darling of the Democratic party - the party WANTS a Clinton restoration - but the intense campaigning and constant declarations that she and Bill is divisive have made many former Hillary supporters (such as myself) less sure of voting for her. Her performance last night put Bill into the background and reassured voters that she can be likeable as well as knowledgeable. That goes a long way to easing fears about her and swings more of the people who really do like her (but are afraid to vote for her) back into her camp. So, in the e