Dems go at it in first debate ...

Posted by Guest Blogger at 8:20 AM on April 27, 2007.

Editor's note: This is a guest post from Steve Benen, author of the Carpetbagger Report.

Round One

Going into a presidential debate, even an early one with eight candidates each struggling to distinguish themselves from their rivals, there’s a temptation to think there will be a “winner.” Someone, at some point, is going to deliver a blow or share an insight that will be so impressive, he or she will rise above the field. It’s a fool’s errand, though, waiting for someone to say, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

With that in mind, last night’s Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina was relatively entertaining political theater, but little more. It seems safe to assume that the race for the nomination has not substantively changed at all — all of the candidates are pretty much where they were this time yesterday.

Indeed, if we stick with a boxing metaphor, the major candidates seemed to realize that it was far too early to throw any roundhouse punches, so they didn’t. Indeed, there were two sentences that stood out for me, not for their substance, but for their collegiality.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think what Barack said is right. I mean part of our challenge is to put together the political support throughout the country, particularly within the Republican party, to join with us to bring an end to this war….

SEN. OBAMA: Hillary mentioned earlier, this is going to be a change election; people are hungry for change. And the question is, who is going to be the most effective agent for change?

This was effectively the pugilists taking off their gloves and showing their top rival some respect. When it’s April, the top two candidates can afford to do this. It doesn’t make for intense drama, but neither of them actually want that anyway at this point.

Here are my synopses for each of the candidates (in alphabetical order):

Biden — I’ll admit from the outset that Biden probably isn’t my favorite candidate in the race (cough, cough, bankruptcy bill, cough), but he might have had the strongest performance of any of the eight last night. At a minimum, he delivered the very best answer. Host Brian Williams asked, “Senator Biden, words have in the past gotten you in trouble, words that were borrowed and words that some found hateful. An editorial in the Los Angles Times said, ‘In addition to his uncontrolled verbosity, Biden is a gaffe machine.’ Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?” Biden, with a subtle smile, said, “Yes” — and didn’t utter another word. Good for him.

Biden hit all the high points, delivering solid answers on Iraq, education, and gun control. I’m still not going to vote for him, but Biden had a good night.

Clinton — I’ve heard some talk that Clinton came across as “stiff,” but I didn’t see it that way. She struck me as poised and extremely well prepared. On the war, she transitioned nicely from the past to the future: “I think the real question before us is, what do we do now?” I’m not sure what the expectations were for Clinton going into an event like this, but I think she handled herself nicely.

Dodd — Dodd, like Biden, probably didn’t go into the debate on everyone’s radar screen, but he’s another one who benefited from the format. (It’s a reminder that experienced senators who’ve debated on the Senate floor every day for a couple of decades know how to excel in a debate.) I wasn’t watching with a stop-clock, so this is just a hunch, but I got the sense that Dodd probably got the least amount of screen time of the eight candidates, but what he got he used well.

When asked if welfare recipients should have to take a drug test to receive government benefits, Dodd delivered a particularly good answer: “Well, not necessarily. I think the country gets uneasy about going around and testing us all the time. We’ve overtested in some cases already as it is. Frankly, I think you clearly have to have rules and regulations here, but going around and insisting upon it, you may have very people who need that help for their families and children. All of a sudden they may be addicts that need help and assistance. To deprive them of that because they have an illness, it seems to me, the wrong direction to be going in. Let’s be more respectful, let’s reach out to people, a bit more of that compassion we talk about all the time.” Solid.

Edwards — Because Edwards has already been through the process once, I think a lot of people probably expected the most out of him. He did fine, but if you listened closely, you noticed that he was the most willing to get a few digs in on his top rivals. Asked whether Clinton should apologize for her 2002 war vote, Edwards said, “I think that’s a question for the conscience of anybody who voted for this war. I mean, Senator Clinton and anyone else who voted for this war has to search themselves and decide whether they believe they’ve voted the right way; if so, they can support their vote. If they believe they didn’t, I think it’s important to be straightforward and honest.” Subtle but aggressive.

Later, on health care, Edwards said, “Rhetoric’s not enough. Highfalutin language is not enough.” He wasn’t looking at Obama, but I think the audience knew who his target was.

Gravel — Oh yes, Sen. Gravel. There are two distinct schools of thought on our friend from Alaska: 1) Gravel is a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is curmudgeon who made the debate lively and entertaining; and 2) Gravel is an unhinged crank who looked kind of silly last night. I lean much closer to the latter view. I appreciated his levity, but he lashed out wildly at the rest of the Democratic field (they “frighten” him, he said) and insisted the United States has “no important enemies.” Gravel’s sole function seemed to be making the other candidates appear more presidential. Right now, the other candidates are no doubt wondering how to get Gravel uninvited to future debates.

Kucinich — Again, I didn’t have a stop watch, but Kucinich seemed to get the most airtime of the eight, which is odd, since few consider him a credible candidate for the nomination. On the whole, I found Kucinich quite articulate, but rather repetitive, denouncing “the idea of using war as a matter of policy” three times, according to my notes.

Obama — Obama probably entered the debate with the most questions surrounding him. After having to debate Alan Keyes in his 2004 race, was Obama prepared for the big time? Clearly, the answer is yes. Sixty-second responses to awkwardly-worded questions limit an orator’s ability to shine, but Obama’s responses were compelling and strong. He offered some specifics on health care, which took away one of the more common complaints from his critics, and when Gravel and Kucinich attacked him directly, it made Obama look better. I was particularly fond of his answer to a question about his biggest mistake: “There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn’t have. And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that families make those decisions and not bureaucrats and politicians.” Message: I won’t be timid about standing up for my beliefs and principles in the future.

Richardson — Richardson was doing fine, right up until Williams asked about his model Supreme Court justice. “It would be Justice Whizzer White,” Richardson said. Really? A guy who voted in the minority on Roe v. Wade? Who opposed Miranda? Richardson also said he’d end the war in Iraq in his first day in office. Really? How?

Debate analysis is a bit like beauty — it’s in the eye of the beholder. What’d you think?

Tagged as: debate, dems, election08