One need not be a campaign insider to recognize before last night’s debate in New Hampshire what the leading Democratic candidates were likely to try to do. Barack Obama entered the debate riding an Iowa-driven wave, and would stay positive while avoiding any momentum-killing gaffes. John Edwards was likely to take a few rhetorical shots at Hillary Clinton, in the hopes of making this a two-man contest. Clinton would want to highlight her competence and experience, and get in some digs at Obama.
In this sense, all three largely accomplished what they set out to accomplish. Obama showed a little more policy depth than he has in previous debates, and avoided mistakes. Edwards took on Clinton, characterizing her as the candidate of the status quo. And Clinton demonstrated policy chops while rolling out some new attacks on Obama. Was any of this game-changing? Probably not, but it was actually a pretty good debate.
Now, there was one exchange that stood out, and which everyone who watched will remember. Before getting to the clip, let’s set the stage. Clinton had just characterized Obama as some kind of flip-flopper on healthcare (it was, frankly, a bit of stretch as arguments go). Obama responded, and explained why Clinton was mistaken. Edwards jumped in, rallying to Obama’s defense.
“Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack,” Edwards said. “That’s exactly what happens…. [W]hat will occur every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack. Every single time…. I didn’t hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she’s not, we hear them.”
Clinton, visibly annoyed, pushed back.
In a campaign season filled with Rorschach tests, this was a doozy.
On the one hand, Clinton showed the kind of raise-your-voice passion that she usually lacks. She was animated and aggressive, fighting hard to defend her record and highlight real accomplishments. By this reasoning, this moment was a net positive and nothing at all to be embarrassed about. For all the talk about Clinton being a “robot,” this was some real human emotion.
On the other hand, Clinton, some have argued, became too aggressive. The more she fought, the more defensive she became, and the closer she came to losing her temper. Immediately after the debate, the Clinton campaign distributed YouTube links to her best moments from the debate, and this wasn’t in the list … but the Republican National Committee distributed its own YouTube links, and this did make the RNC’s list.
Folks can certainly draw their own conclusions about impassioned vs. shrill, but I was struck by something Clinton said, not just how she said it: “We don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country.” Regardless of tone or theatrics, that’s really not a positive message, particularly with a group of voters looking to be inspired.
Other random observations from my notes:
* WMUR’s Scott Spradling, the co-moderator for the debate, referred at one point to Edwards and Obama “double-teaming” Clinton. I’ve seen similar comments elsewhere. I have no idea what this is in reference to — Edwards went after Clinton, but I didn’t see Obama going after Clinton at all.
* I was disappointed that Clinton implicitly compared Obama to Bush: “You know, in 2000 we, unfortunately, ended up with a president who people said they wanted to have a beer with; who said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider; who said that he had his intuition and he was going to, you know, really come into the White House and transform the country. And you know, at least I think there are the majority of Americans who think that was not the right choice.” In context, this was in response to a point about Obama’s likability. Someone can love Obama or they can hate him, but comparing him to George W. Bush is just about the ultimate in Democratic insults, and in this case, completely unfounded.
* Towards the end of the debate, Clinton dismissed the significance of speeches. Obama defended the power of language: “The truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don’t discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens.” Richardson responded immediately afterwards, “You know, this is the kind of Washington bickering that the public turns off.” I have no idea what Richardson was referring to, given that no one was actually bickering.
All in all, I’d have a hard time picking a clear “winner.” John Edwards was as good as I’ve seen him in any debate; Obama was very good, presidential, and might have helped convince some skeptics who questioned whether he knew his stuff; Richardson was repetitive and disjointed; and Clinton did exactly what she hoped to do.
So, what’d you think?