The last time the Democratic presidential candidates got together for a debate, it got ugly. Nasty exchanges got personal, voices were raised, and charges over Wal-Mart and Rezko were thrown around indiscriminately. The negative reaction was so intense, John Edwards sought to capitalize, running ads in South Carolina about being the only “grown-up” in the race.
Would we see a repeat? It was certainly possible. Last night’s event in Los Angeles was the first mano-a-mano contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and both had an incentive to get at least a little aggressive. For Obama, Clinton is still favored in most of the Super Tuesday states. For Clinton, Obama appears to have the momentum going into Feb. 5. Was it time for each of them to try in get in each other’s way again?
Apparently not, because the polar opposite happened. The NYT noted that the debate was so collegial, it seemed as if “the battle was to see which of them could outnice the other.” At one point, Clinton said, without a hint of sarcasm, “We’re having such a good time. We are, we are. We’re having a wonderful time.” By all appearances, she meant it.
As for the substance, last night was probably one of the best debates I’ve seen this entire campaign cycle. The moderators seemed anxious to highlight the differences between the two candidates, which were minor, but it led to some unusually substantive, detailed discussions on healthcare policy, immigration, the housing crisis, and Iraq. If someone tuned in hoping to see one of the candidates draw blood, they were sorely disappointed. But if that same person stuck around, they saw two senators, at the top of their game, talking seriously about policy specifics without appearing wonky.
Who “won”? I tend to think of this as a subjective question — people can watch the same debate and come to very different conclusions — but from what I can tell, Clinton won the first hour (which focused on domestic issues like healthcare and immigration), while Obama won the second (which focused on Iraq and campaign vision).
On the first part, I found Noam Scheiber’s take to be spot-on.
On health care, for example, my gut (and head) still say Hillary has the stronger position substantively. But Obama really cleaned up his slight-mess of an answer from the South Carolina debate, arguing (compellingly) that he doesn’t believe there will be 15 million people left out by his plan (as Hillary claims), explaining that there will be ways to punish people who try to game the system, and that, even with Hillary’s subsidies, there will be people who can’t afford insurance and could therefore be fined or punished for not buying it. And, of course, Obama got to invoke Ted Kennedy on his own behalf, which never hurts.
Obama also nicely cleaned up his slightly-too-cavalier answer from the Las Vegas debate about his organizational skills. (He’d meant to say he was personally disorganized, not a lousy manager, but it gave Hillary an small opening and she exploited it.) Tonight he was much more circumspect while making the same essential point: “[P]art of the task, I believe, of leadership is the hard nuts-and-bolts of getting legislation passed and managing the bureaucracy,” he said. “But part of it is also being able to call on the American people to reach higher, to say we shouldn’t settle for an economy that does very well for some, but leaves millions of people behind.” That’s the most idealistic case for an Obama presidency and he made it eloquently.
In general, Obama gave his wonkiest performance of the campaign (which is not the same as the most tedious–which he wasn’t), and it served him well. He was extremely fluent on health care policy and foreign policy and really demolished the idea that he’s all uplift and no substance.
Having said that, Hillary continues to be extremely strong on domestic policy, health care in particular. She’s especially good at using the issue to do something Obama excels at–which is to invoke some broader theme. As in South Carolina, she turned it into an argument about political courage, saying she got the same advice Obama got about how controversial a mandate would be, and that she decided to support it anyway. “[B]een there, done that,” she said of the likely opposition. “But if you don’t start by saying you’re going to achieve universal health care, you will be nibbled to death.” It was a great moment for her.
On the second, I think Clinton was at a big disadvantage on Iraq, and the emphasis on the 2002 AUMF vote left her in a very tough spot. She didn’t want to admit a mistake, but she didn’t want to stand by her previous position. Politically and rhetorically, there’s not a lot of room there.
Obama knew it, and seized the opportunity to make a point that worked both politically and electorally.
“We shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that I think it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war in the first place and that’s one of the reasons why I think I will be … the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain — or any other Republican, because they all want basically a continuation of George Bush’s policies — because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place. That’s the kind of leadership I intend to provide as president of the United States.”
In contrast, Clinton said she made a “reasonable” assessment of the Iraqi threat, given the evidence. Wolf Blitzer asked, “So what I hear you saying — and correct me if I’m wrong — is that you were naive in trusting President Bush?” The crowd booed vociferously, and Clinton said, “Good try, Wolf.” She added, though, “I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in.” In other words, she was mistaken in trusting the Bush White House, but she can’t possibly say so.
Ultimately, both candidates did largely what they wanted to do. Obama, who seems to be getting better with each debate, showed policy depth and stature, while emphasizing his judgment. Clinton, who’s always been great in the debates, downplayed talk about her husband, highlighted impressive policy expertise, and made a compelling case for her candidacy. They both took repeated shots at John McCain, which is exactly the right strategy.
Will this be a game-changer? Almost certainly not. Obama probably didn’t do much to cut into Clinton’s lead, but Clinton probably didn’t do much to stop Obama’s momentum. Call it a draw.
So, what did you think?
Post Script: I imagine readers get tired of seeing me say this, but I just have to reiterate that these two Dems out-class the Republican field in immeasurable ways. It was the only real advantage of having two consecutive nights of debates — political observers got to see both fields, back-to-back, for the same period of time. Clinton and Obama know more, understand more, and think more than the GOP field on its best day. And the Republicans, frankly, don’t have many “best days.”