This was a much less interesting exchange than the Republican event. I had hoped to see Obama close the deal tonight, and bring some of the rhetorical excitement to the stage that he's been bringing to the stump, but he definitely underperformed. I think Edwards and Hillary both shone, and if I were a Hillary voter, I'd be pleased with her performance tonight. She didn't get a clear win, but because she looked solid and substantive and engaged all night, while Obama seemed fuzzy and platitudinous, she definitely beat him.
I wonder, though, how much impact this is going to have in New Hampshire. How much of New Hampshire was watching this debate? More NH voters than will hear them on the stump? And how will it play out in the late local news in NH, and in tomorrow's papers?
One more thing: ABC News did the country a favor tonight. This was by far the best debate night of the campaign.
[For readers just joining this blog, if you want to see all the liveblogging I did on the GOP debate, they're below the fold ... and be sure to leave your comments.]
UPDATE: TNR's Mike Crowley makes an important point:
To me the question is whether New Hampshire voters primarily responded tonight to Hillary's substance, in which case I think she may have gained some ground. Or whether they focused on her prickly persona, in which case she may be in deep trouble.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
A couple of Inside NH details.
The weather is going to be great on Primary day. It's shooting up from bitter cold in the single digits last Thursday to almost 50! Expect really high turn outs. There's also the issue of the NH Dems pushing Civil Unions through and having them just go into effect this past Jan 1st. (Only facts: Last spring the state dems elected a gay man cleared of child porn charges as their NH state chair. Civil Union was the first legislation he championed. The dem. governor took awhile to go along. It may cost him his job. Interesting to see if that vote changes this vote.)
Expect Civil Unions to push up the social con. vote and to sway alot of the social con. independents to vote Republican. Not saying that Obama won't get alot of the independents. Just saying I saw 75 year old women wait in line for 2+ hours in the last Presidential just to vote AGAINST gay marriage. Don't underestimate it. As Speaker Tip O'Neil once said "All politics are local." Be forewarned.
Irenaeus, try Obama's speech at the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa. It's pretty powerful, oratorically...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc
That said, despite being an Obama supporter, I thought Hillary did better last night. I just don't see that her anger was out of control, but this seems to have been a Rohrschach test-- people either think there was nothing there, or are convinced she acted like an evil Medusa. Very weird, but she's famous for being polarizing. I actually thought Hillary seemed the most in command of the facts. She's not as inspiring as my candidate Barack, but I was impressed by her last night.
You are one of the few honest pundits out there. She did win on substance. There were enough double standards in the press coverage to sink a battleship. She is 'shrill' and she had a 'meltdown'. No, she didn't. She defended herself vigorously. It is clear who the press thinks is the better candidate. They thought the same thing in the 2000 election. They picked the likable guy. And that didn't turn out too well, did it?
I disagree about her level of engagement. When she wasn't regurgitating points made by other candidates, she seemed either merely bored or waiting for a moment to undermine another candidate. While she had some good things to say I thought Edwards and Obama well outshone her.
"Media enthusiasm has never captivated me, nor has someone's particular oratory skill. Give me substance and values above clamor of any sort."
Well, Sassy Granny, that puts you in with probably less than 5% of the populace. The rest of mankind seems to regard purposeful cognitive effort as something akin to self-inflicted waterboarding.
You can't expect politicians to play to the 5% of us with our heads on straight. Too much money, power and influence is on the line, and the masses are far too easy to hoodwink.
"One thing I will say for Hillary, though: she wants to be President just as much as Bill did; maybe more so."
And the vast majority of the time, the one who gets elected is not the best person for the job, but rather the person who thirsts the most for power over other people. Both of the Clintons are like desert refugees scrabbling after a drop of water when it comes to power.
Happily, every once in a while we get someone like Obama who, sure, wants the power, but not in a megalomaniacal way. A populace, pushed to its limits as ours has been by the Bush machine (and the Clinton machine before them) can sense this desire; what us cognitive folks call "statemanship."
Personally, I like Ron Paul's philosophies the best. But I can live with Obama. He seems like a decent, honest fellow who is interested in fixing problems, as opposed to merely grabbing everything he can for himself. And I'll take an honest attempt to fix a problem in a way I don't agree with, over someone (*cough* Romney/McCain/Giuliani *cough*) who tells me what they think I want to hear, gets elected and then merely carries on with the current corrupt corporatocracy.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.