Here is what I learned in the debate, and spin appearances after the debate, about each of the candidates that I didn’t know before:
Chris Dodd is for decriminalizing bong-hits and John Edwards thinks that sends the wrong message to children. Edwards is a wimp on this issue, as were several others that raised their hands as opposing the decriminalization of bong-hits.
Bill Richardson is running for vice-president (which is why he leaped to defend Hillary Clinton from a tag-team led by Edwards, Obama, and Dodd).
Dennis Kucinich saw something in the sky once that he could not identify and this makes him insane in the view of all serious people.
Obama will not throw out any red meat no matter how hard he is prodded, but he will go after Hillary Clinton. He’s also for giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants in New York State (Dodd and Biden are against it).
Joe Biden thinks very little of Rudy Guiliani.
Hillary Clinton is trying to have every side of every argument: on the war in Iraq, on confronting Iran, on Social Security, and on giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. She got nailed tonight on all those issues and clearly lost the debate BADLY.
As for who won the debate? That’s not clear. Obama helped himself by getting aggressive and making clear distinctions on Iran. Edwards did quite well, although he took some shots. Biden had the most memorable zinger and was relaxed and confident. Richardson and Dodd, as per usual, struggled to get noticed.
And Kucinich is now officially ‘nuts’ in the eyes of the punditocracy. He is about to get the Dean treatment.
So, where do we stand? The one thing that needed to happen, happened. Hillary bled all over the carpets from beginning to especially the end. If there is any movement in the polls from this debate it will be away from her. Yet, no one set themselves up to be the main recipient of her loss of support.
As for the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants: regardless of the merits, it will now be used against Hillary with a breathtaking relentlessness not seen since they found out that her husband let his peter out of his pocket. Clinton, if she supports this initiative, needed to stand tall on it, be aggressive, and explain the rationale…which is certainly a hard one to explain in a sound byte. Instead, she said she was for it even though it is a really bad idea, but she is not for it, but it is a gotcha question, but what the hell else can we do, but she doesn’t endorse it. It was the worst of all worlds. And it will make Kerry’s flip-flop look like peanuts.
If I were advising Hillary, and I’m not, I’d get her out front tomorrow to give a speech about the urgent need to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, because there is no going back now. Either she convinces people she is right, or she is going to get destroyed on that issue in the general election.
I agree that Clinton, I thought, was exposed pretty badly tonight. Blame it on the MSM (as they deserve some of it), but the frame for her has been set up by Edwards and Obama about her problems with clarity and honesty – and then she fell right for it.
Over at dKos, I am surprised that a lot of people think she did well tonight. Was it somewhat unfair that Williams and Russert focused on setting up conflict between her and Obama/Edwards from the get-go? Definitely. But it still doesn’t help her that she played right into the narrative that was set up.
That being said, I don’t expect any huge shifts in the polls because of this – not because the support will go to many different parties, but because it’s too late to really move national polls at this point. It comes to Iowa.
psi-
I disagree a little bit. If we stop the clock right now, I’d agree with you. But the next three days will have a constant barrage of replays of Hillary’s flip-flopping answers. This narrative is now THE NARRATIVE and it will damage her. There will be some movement.
Eh, Dean was making verbal gaffes right up to Iowa, and it didn’t hurt him in national polls in any meaningful way.
Again, I disagree. You can go back and look. You’ll find that the day we captured Saddam was Dean’s last day where he was gaining. After that gaffe he dropped steadily until he finally lost Iowa and committed the biggest gaffe in history.
Okay, I did go back and look. The only time Dean drops off markedly is after he lost Iowa.
You don’t understand how what an impact the next three days are going to have.
“Hillary bled all over the carpets from beginning to especially the end.”
Mood swings and hot flashes. More inevitable than war with iran.
I guess something can’t really be ‘more inevitable’…
Ahh, I think that Hilldog gets the nod and maybe squeaks it out in the general. I think the Dems probably still do well vis-a-vis the house and senate.
That god damn woman is just killing the grass roots. I was proud to be a Democrat until she started talking.
Well, we can agree to disagree. Personally, I don’t think it’s going to do much. With Clinton surging to 20-30 point leads nationally over Obama, she could easily drop 5-10 points and still be leading by a difference larger than the MoE.
Oh, I see you are referring to national polls. I had missed that.
It can be seen even in national polls (key date 12/15/03:
Enough shadow boxing — get in the ring in Iowa and see what happens when the bell rings. Its all been orchestrated booshwa up til now.
I could only watch about ten minutes of the debate myself. I’ve had it up to hear with equivocating posturing politicians of any flavor. Historically important movement is taking place and these morons are playing gotcha over drivers licenses.
I agree that Hillary’s answer on the issue of driver’s licenses for illegals was pretty amazing. First, she came out strongly for them. To which I thought, “good for her.” Then she seemed to backtrack, arguing that she wasn’t actually for them, when she had just said the opposite. It was astounding.
One dynamic that I thought was interesting: Edwards got off some pretty strong attacks against Clinton. But somehow, I don’t see them benefiting him. As a (tentative) Obama supporter, I thought it was good for Barack–Edwards was taking Hillary down, but it would redound to Obama’s advantage, not Edwards’.
Oh, and I’m glad that Biden said that about Giuliani–what a loser Rudy truly is!!
I agree with you about Edwards attacks potentially helping Obama, but it might help Edwards later on if this becomes a race again.
The sad truth is… most people don’t even watch these debates. They’re going to see Hillary and say gee, she looks familiar, and she’s a woman, and I liked her husband – let’s get her.
I wish people were more serious about being participants in their own futures, but I fear if history means anything this is just a blip on the radar.
Disclosure: I’m leaning towards Obama, myself.
True that people do not watch the debates, but they do watch the news and read the papers, and that is why winning debates has become all about post-debate spin. What is the narrative that comes out of the debate? That is what determines who won. And what do you think the narrative will be in this case?
UFOs and Drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants, naturally.
I was getting really, REALLY annoyed at Chris Matthews in the post-debate interviews. The man is an idiot — all he wanted to talk about was UFOs and presenting the whole drivers’ license thing as a new plank in the Democratic Party platform.
I think they pulled that UFO question just to distract anyone from hearing anything ELSE Kucinich had to say. (and he mentioned impeachment at least three times!)
We’ll see. My prediction is that the narrative will mostly be “Hillary attacked vigorously by rivals”, since that’s kind of a “man bites dog” story where the Democrats are concerned, and waffling is more of a “man sits on the couch and watches TV” story.
OTOH – if Clinton gets the nomination, those clips will be repeated ad nauseum across the airwaves once the general election comes out. Waffling Democrat and Immigration – two things that rabid Republicans love to hate.
I suppose it all depends on how scared the Republican establishment are of Clinton. If they want her nomination tanked and want to face someone else they’ll be talking up her immigration gaffes to their reporter friends as much as possible. If they want her to be the candidate in the general election, the fact that the other Dems “savaged” her in the debate will get talked up instead. She’s already the Dem establishment candidate – those guys aren’t going to be chatting up how horrible Clinton is since she’s their guy at this point.
Watch.
From the so-called left. (NY Times):
In 7th Round, a Pitched Debate: Clinton Hears It From Her Rivals.
And from the no-doubt-about-it right. (Fox News):
Dem Rivals Gang Up on Clinton in Debate.
The fix is in that deep.
She takes a 2 or 3 or 5 point dive in the polls, rebounds almost immediately, wins Iowa, and that’s all (s)he wrote.
Watch.
Betcha.
AG
Thanks to comments like this, I’m almost cured of caring about any of this.
Don’t pat yourself on the back just yet–the MSM and the candidates themselves had a lot to do with it too. But I’m a fraction of an inch from saying, “Yep, you’re right, it’s a rigged game and there’s no point trying to play. I should just spend more time playing with my dog. He deserves and has earned my support.”
And then you can go and have a celebratory Chardonnay or something with Hillary.
Just kidding. The “little people” won’t ever get that kind of “access”.
Renee…
I do not want to have a cleebratory drink with HRC or anyone ELSE if she wins.
I am just reporting the facts.
As I see them.
If we are to survive our current problems, we MUST understand the way business is done and has been done here in late 20th Century/early 21st Century America.
The AAAARGHING of Howard Dean?
The Monica Lewinsky-ing of Bill Clinton?
Right on back to the Watergating of Richard Nixon and the coverups during the assassination years.
George Butch isn’t the decider.
A controlled media is the decider, as far as the public is concerned. The power faction with the best media control gets the prize. At least until they fuck up SO badly (see Iraq, Katrina and the sex and graft scandals of the Republican Party for more on that) that NO amount of spin will bury the dirt.
Frankly, if I thought it likely that your dog could win I’d sooner vote for him than for ANY of the candidates.
He’s better looking than any of them. Except maybe Obama on a good day. His haircut surely beats Edwards’ and Hillary’s to DEATH. And I will bet that he is clearer in the expression of his wishes as well.
I can see it now.
Yup.
Later…
AG
And here it is. Use whatcha got. Try everything; use what works. Even HRC’s people see the utility of crying “PILE ON!!!”
SO nice of the AP to include URLs for the video, don’tcha think?
SO nice.
Well…what the fuck.
Save yourself a URL paste.
It’s over folks.
Bet on it.
They’re cooked if they oppose her, and they are cooked if they do not.
Checkmate.
Bet on it.
AG
Scarborough this morning and his crew (save Mika B.) thought that Obama had failed to capitalize on opportunities last night, that he “blew it.” Joan Walsh from Salon echoed that sentiment. When the Luntz focus group was brought up as showing Obama winning over that group by a wide margin, they just looked at each other perplexed. Couple that with all the polling which shows Obama won and I wonder what debate the Morning Joe crew was watching?
In any event it is clear the narrative will now shift to the “comeback” mode versus the “Hillary is inevitable” mode because that has outworn its MSM utility.
One more observation, as an Obama guy I was anxiously awaiting/fearful of the McClurkin question, and it never came. Was anyone else surprised, or should this be expected given the Hillary-centric focus of the debate?