Hillary Clinton’s Debate Rebound (UPDATED)
Due to some technical problems last night (still being worked on) our post on the debate could not be posted. But here’s a bit of catch-up on what many pundits consider Hillary Clinton’s debate rebound.
Of course, a “rebound” means that what viewers saw did not fit an existing narrative as described by the mainstream media, all-knowing talking heads on TV, and bloggers (some of whom consider themselves superior to the mainstream media that they quote and link to since most bloggers do not do any original reporting and few bloggers fact-check reports that they quote — and we don’t either). So a “rebound” means the conventional wisdom is being revised. Until the NEXT deviation from the conventional wisdom as described by The People Who Know.
But here are some YouTubes that show the “new” Hillary Clinton. And it seems to be a new one. Last night Hillary Clinton the front runner, sitting on her lead and trying not to offend to the point where she seemed to be a latter day Thomas Dewey with lipstick, was gone. THIS was Hillary Clinton the down-in-the-trenches campaigner.
As with most debate responses — except the ones that are spontaneous and suddenly boost or batter a candidacy — some of it may be scripted. But scripting alone won’t cut it. The person in the debate has to come across on TV as sincere, forceful yet not arrogant.
Here’s a key Hillary Moment:
And here’s another. Former Senator John Edwards has been going after Clinton steadily and relentlessly. In this clip, she takes him on head-on and links him up with Republican attack-style politics:
And Barack Obama? She takes him on head-on, too:
What can you conclude? A few thoughts:
– She has discarded the front-runner style campaign. Clinton wasn’t exactly coasting before but she was overtly triangulating. In reality, this shift, requiring her to jump into the dirty trenches and battle her own party’s foes, is exactly what she’ll need to battle a skillful, tough political fighter such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
– Clinton has the most to lose if she doesn’t look good in early votes. The new conventional wisdom is that she showed a lot of toughness. If she either loses or barely wins an early battle the new narrative will be her non-inevitability and vulnerability as a candidate.
– The GOP has reason not to underestimate her. She looks increasingly good on TV, comes across well, smooth and tough. The U.S. is eons behind other countries that have already have women in top jobs and it’s just a matter of time before Americans get totally comfortable with the idea of a woman as President. Clinton’s seeming confidence in this debate could help erase some of that.
– Don’t be surprised if there are attempts to discredit her or her husband. The greater a threat she is in terms of performance (how she fares in debates and in major media interviews), the larger the likelihood becomes that her foes within her party or outside of it will try to find something to derail her candidate. If they can’t find some new baggage, they will likely open up some old baggage to see if some dirty linen is inside.
More articles on Hillary Clinton and the debate
Be sure to read the ever-lively James Wolcott who begins his post on the debate with this:
The Democrats on stage in Las Vegas: I don’t understand why these televised debates can’t be held in a more intimate studio setting so that the candidates don’t feel compelled to SHOUT their ANSWERS back to Wolf Blitzer, who himself is BELLOWING as if trying to be heard above a raging inferno. It’s like that dinner theater production of Death of a Salesman in Soapdish. And the way this debate is shot and lit by CNN, it’s as if little elves upgraded me to HDTV when I was in the bath. I really don’t need to get that Chuck Close a topography of makeup deposits and tightwire nip/tucks. And why is the backdrop so busy? That building-blocks design suggests the eyesore wall of a Winter Olympics pavilion. They should have taken their cue from the phenomenal yet uncluttered use of rear projection screens in the Radio City Christmas Spectacular.
Read it all.
UPDATE: And some controversy….
6 Responses to “Hillary Clinton’s Debate Rebound (UPDATED)”
[...] Clark Hillary Clinton’s Debate Rebound » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
I disagree with the media. Although Senator Clinton did go into attack dog mode, she still didn’t do very well. She still can’t answer questions clearly (look at her response to NAFTA), she’s still clearly out-of-touch with the working class, and she’s still planting questions. She would make a terrible Prez. Four more years is what we get with her.
John Edwards sees her for the phony she is, and can answer difficult complex questions, can take the heat, and clearly understands the working class’s needs. He is not simply a Republican Lite like she is. Her health care plan puts unrestricted “freedoms” on the health insurance company (i.e. they can still charge you sky-high prices and screw you), whereas Edwards is going to give them hell. She has no vision for the future, whereas he does. She will leave the White House just as divided as it is now, whereas Edwards will unite it. He proposes massive reform, she proposes maintaining the status quo.
It’s clear who’s better for the American public and who I’m voting for. Go Edwards!
What happened to Mike Gravel? Did he finally give up because the race is taking so long this time and he wanted to finally retire while he had a few years left?
I’m not a Biden supporter (but not against him, either) but I thought this was one of his better debates.
I was interested in seeing how Obama would perform in his new “aggressive” mode against Hillary. He was definitely trying on the mantle to see how it fit and it definitely needs some nips and tucks. But whoever the eventual Democractic candidate is, they will need lots of practice with this for the general election. With such an unpopular Republican Prez i office and the state of the union being what it is, the Republican candidates feel threatened and desperately want to hold on to power. The Republicans will be particularly more vicious in going after their Dem. opponent.
Speaking of which, it will be interesting to see how ferocious the Republicans will be toward a new Dem. Prez. (assuming the next Prez is a Dem). I bet the Republicans will really go after him/her with everything they have. Instead everyone (Dem. and Repub.) should be concentrating on working with the new administration and repairing the damage of the last few years.
I agree, but that’ll never happen. Money and power trump reform and actual progress in politics. Didn’t you know?
Yeah, I know…. but in some states the Dems and Repubs work together much better than they do at the national level. Not perfect, but that’s just the nature of politics.
Not here in Pennsylvania. It’s always a blood bath, just like at the national level.
Of course. It’s a shame that a truly great candidate like John Edwards (just like Bill Bradley in 2000, and Wesley Clark in 2004), gets sidelined for Hillary Clinton, who I think is simply all of the bad aspects of her husband with none of the good ones. Obama would be good and seems to posess a magic political touch, but I still think that 2012 is the year for him.
Still, I always thought that the primary system is screwed up. By the time it gets to Pennsylvania, it’ll be a finished and done deal. I think they should have the elections all on the same day…just like the general election. That way most everyone’s vote will have some significance.
When will the American public learn?