You couldn’t exactly call the debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a “love-in,” but this much was clear: it seemed as if both of the last man/woman standing candidates for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination decided that the bitter attacks wouldn’t help them on Super Tuesday so they seriously talked issues.
For the most part, they produced perhaps the most issue-oriented, low-key debate yet — one that will likely make Democrats conclude they have two great candidates and Republicans unify around Senator John McCain since it’s clear both could be highly formidable. But it was not the knock down, political history-making battle that many had predicted given its high stakes timing — the last debate before the Super Tuesday mega primaries vote.
[See TMV writer Jill Zimon’s earlier observations about the debate. Also be sure to read Robert Stein’s post.]
Who won? It depends on your perspective (or political preference):
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON WON: She was the front-runner going in and Obama didn’t score any knock out punches. She showed a solid command of the issues. She landed a major punch in noting that she worked on immigration reform before Obama was even in the Senate. She managed to skillfully-deflect the question about the controversial involvement of her husband Bill Clinton. She needed to come across as tough and issue-oriented but blunt the attack mode done-to-death by her husband. (Bill Clinton was continuing to make statements that won’t help his wife yesterday..)
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA WON: This time there was no hostile “stare” when she talk and he showed a command of issues, particularly when anything dealing with foreign policy came up. He will benefit because Clinton again refused to say her original vote on Iraq was a mistake — a refusal that angers many on the Democratic Party’s left. In terms of fundraising and poll-trending, Obama has Big Mo going into Super Tuesday. His main task was to hold his own, look Presidential, show a grasp of issues and not make a mistake. He succeeded on all fronts.
[UPATE: A focus group of undecided voters polled by Republican pollster Frank Luntz found they felt Obama had won “overwhelmingly.”]
But the name of the game in this debate was to eschew the adrenalin-generating attacks and debate issues more in the style of 1960s debates, versus early-21st-century debates that seem more influenced by angry talk radio culture than traditional debate.
There didn’t seem to be any statement that will dominate the days heading up to Super Tuesday — but, then, one could emerge in later news cycles (or via the campaign of one of the candidates). A fact check of various debate claims is HERE.
Media coverage also noted the low-key nature of what some had said in advance would be one of the most lively and high-stakes debates ever in any political year.
ABC News:
The final Democratic debate of primary season was civil and substantive right from the start.
Anyone who was expecting fireworks tonight might well have been disappointed, but the two candidates both sought to rise above the bickering that marked their last encounter in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Barack Obama opened by noting, “I was friends with Hillary Clinton before we started this campaign; I will be friends with Hillary Clinton after this campaign is over.”
Clinton answered with equal grace, remarking on the historic significance that the Democratic nominee will be either a Black man or a woman. “Look at us,” she said. “We are not more of the same. We will change this country.”
I was tempted to call this encounter a draw but I am mindful that there are no zero sum debates in presidential politics.
And twenty minutes of Iraq happened. And so I’ll give Obama the edge. Clinton was forced, for about 20 minutes, to recapitulate her vote on Iraq, over and over again. It was tough for her. She seemed to mire herself in the details of history.Obama came into the debate moving up in polls across the country. His presence was, for the first 45 minutes or so, commanding. His opening statement was pitch perfect, segueing from praise for his rivals to the heart of his message. He ably made his case that this is a change election and the trajectory of change is steeper with Obama. His late-in-the-debate answer on Iraq was much better than hers.
…I think Clinton’s goal tonight was to essentially humble herself before the Democratic Party that rebuked her so profoundly in South Carolina. Substance and niceness and graciousness were the order of the day. By her own standards she succeeded. She still doesn’t have a good answer to the dynasty question. I hear it a lot from voters on the trail. “We are all judged on our own merits” is a tautology.
The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan:
It was, I think, [Obama’s] best debate in the campaign so far. The one-on-one format elevated him instantly and he commanded the stage and the occasion. Hillary Clinton did not do poorly. All her strengths were on show: the policy mastery, the gaffe-free talking points, the Clinton record in the 1990s. But that made his mastery all the more impressive. The good natured sparring helped him. He neutralized her on healthcare and simply cleaned up on the war in Iraq. But most crucial: he seemed like a president. He was already battling McCain. She was still pivoting off Bush. In his body language, he carefully upstaged her, without looking as if he were trying. By the end of the debate, he was pulling her chair back for her.
I’d say that he won the primary election tonight. She is still a formidable candidate and her massive institutional advantage may eventually give her the nomination. But she hasn’t won this primary argument or this primary battle. If she becomes the nominee, it will be because she survived the primaries. He won them.
The Washington Post notes that heading into Super Tuesday the race is a tie:
Sen. Barack Obama described the race for the Democratic presidential nomination as “the past versus the future” as he squared off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday night in a dramatic encounter that fell just five days before a coast-to-coast slate of contests on Tuesday.
As the two began their first one-on-one debate, Clinton encouraged the audience to imagine the next inauguration — and to ask themselves which would do a better job from the outset.
The candidates, each with two victories in hand through the first four nominating contests that had delegates at stake, fell back on the paradigm that has defined the competition — change vs. experience — but drew sharp policy differences. Clinton seized the chance to portray Obama’s health-care proposal as providing inadequate coverage, while Obama said Clinton has not explained how she would force people who cannot afford coverage to buy it. But the image of the two contenders, seated side by side onstage, served to crystallize a Democratic race that has been waged for more than a year and is now in a virtual tie.
Their tone was largely friendly; each candidate laughed agreeably and nodded at the other’s remarks, and they praised each other at different points and looked ahead to the battle with the other party..
….At times Mr. Blitzer tried to coax Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton to mix it up more intensely, at one point bluntly telling Mrs. Clinton that Mr. Obama had taken a “swipe” at her over their foreign policy differences.
“Really?” Mrs. Clinton said. “We’re having such a wonderful time tonight.” A smiling Mr. Obama concurred.
Slate’s John Dickerson proclaims: there was NO WINNER:
If you’re too impatient to read the rest of this piece and want to know the winner, I can’t help you. For the first half of the debate, Clinton was at her best talking about the details of health care and immigration. Clinton is her message—thorough, competent, and commanding. She even had a big one-liner the crowd loved. “It took one Clinton to clean up after a Bush,” she said when asked about the potential Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton trade-off of the White House, “and it may take a Clinton to clean up after a second Bush.”
Obama’s message is inspiration, but he wasn’t terribly inspirational for most of the early part of the debate. If a voter was looking to feel the Obama magic she’d been hearing about, she didn’t get it. That isn’t to say he was a mess. For those voters who are already inspired by Obama and merely needed to be convinced that he could hold his own on policy issues, he was commanding enough to close the deal.
In other words, “The Thrilla In Manila” it wasn’t. And he goes on to write this:
In the last debate in South Carolina, both candidates came spring-loaded to attack each other. This time, they both decided to do the opposite, perhaps because so many people from so many diverse Super Tuesday states were watching. The candidates were anxious to simply get their message across in as appealing a way as possible for voters who might really be tuning in for the first time. They didn’t want to risk looking petty or shrill with such a large and impressionable audience. Also, both campaigns think they’ve picked the right final strategy. Clinton is ahead in the polls. She doesn’t need to tear down Obama. Obama thinks he has the momentum after his win in South Carolina and the big Kennedy endorsements and doesn’t need to go on the offensive. Plus, they can still do the mean stuff in phone calls and mailers and through surrogates.
But the L.A. Times’ must-read Top of the Ticket blog says the debate was a Hollywood dream:
In the heart of Hollywood, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gave their crowd what it obviously wanted: A Hollywood ending.
Rather than grow testier as it went along, their one-on-one debate this evening at L.A.’s Kodak Theatre grew friendlier. And it culminated in a lovefest, with both keeping alive — to the obvious delight of their listeners — the possibility that they will end up on the national ticket together.
Close attention to their answers about an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama pairing will show that neither came anywhere close to committing to such a team. Despite that little detail, they hit high notes as they wrapped up their conversation (which is what the proceedings evolved into).
But a cautionary note:
There are some analysts who predict the “THE END” sign on the campaign will not appear on the day after Super Tuesday.
Rather, it’ll more likely be “TO BE CONTINUED…”
HERE IS A CROSS SECTION OF WEBLOG REACTION:
The debate was a surprisingly substantive discussion of a number of issues that actually resonate in people’s lives. Which means it wasn’t really anything like a political debate….In the context of the race, I think this helped Obama because it put the two of them on the same level, the same stature level. As I’ve said before, Obama in general has not been a good debater. But this was a good one for him. Clinton on the other hand I think helped herself by getting the focus back on her, as opposed to her husband. Not that there’s anything wrong with Bill. But this is her election. I guess on points I’d give this to Obama because of the exchanges on Iraq, but it was a very close call. And both had a good debate.
This debate came down to Obama, talking in vague generalities about change, still without offering any specifics on anything that might be construed as hurtful and thus force him down from Olympus to the messy smelly world of mere mortals, and Hillary’s Bill-like ‘I did so much and suffered so much for all of you’ sanctimoniousness, coupled with ‘George Bush did it’ — and always that disturbing cackle….This debate came down to Obama, talking in vague generalities about change, still without offering any specifics on anything that might be construed as hurtful and thus force him down from Olympus to the messy smelly world of mere mortals, and Hillary’s Bill-like ‘I did so much and suffered so much for all of you’ sanctimoniousness, coupled with ‘George Bush did it’ — and always that disturbing cackle.
Clinton won that debate. Obama talked politics and avoided several key questions, and one answer flat out pissed me off….wasn’t impressed by Obama’s ideas on the economy nor health care. He was very vague, sounding just like a trained politician instead of a guy with ideas.
I can honestly say that I’d be pleased with either Hillary or Obama as our candidate. It has been years since there’s been an election in which I really liked our candidate, let alone liked both of the last two standing. The Republicans are going to have a hard time rallying around any of their candidates, and we have two great ones. Doesn’t mean we can’t lose this in the end. Folks, we can lose this. And don’t ever forget it. It is not going to be easy.
Wow, that was much ado about very little, wasn’t it? Both Clinton and Obama playing it extremely safe at Thursday’s night one-on-one debate in Hollywood. Quick CW: They both like where they currently stand in the race.
Just finished watching the Democrat debate. I have written positively about Barack Obama here before, but to be honest, I think he lost against Hillary Clinton.
On issues such as immigration he seemed painfully naive. On Iraq he seemed to be very simplistic. On health care he seemed optimistic, but not realistic.
I do not think he is a bad man and still think he has a real shot at the White House. But the more I actually watch him for extended periods, the more I think the emperor has no clothes. Barack’s base is not the working class, it is ‘well educated’, largely white university students and Hollywood. That is who he is hoping will get him California on Super Tuesday.
Ninety minutes of debate. I’m calling this one, again, in favor of Obama. Obama established himself as presidential, but so did Hillary. Barack did a better job of distinguishing his position on a variety of issues from Hillary’s. But Hillary did a better job of re-establishing herself as a credible candidate for president. The policy positions of both Hillary and Obama are exceedingly close. Hillary proved herself to be the better technocrat. Obama established himself as the more credible leader.
…The night’s best moment – Barack and Clinton hug after the event, proving to all doubters, that there is humanity in modern American politics. More importantly, do not – repeat – do not discount the possibility that these two run on the same ticket. The likelihood that either would accept the subservient role is modest, but there is drama even in the asking.
—The Democratic Daily has some great videos of Clinton and notes:
The heat is on… this is the final debate before Tsunami Tuesday. Are you watching? This debate was far more toned down than the last, showing some unity between the two candidates once again, including a very warm moment between the two at the end of the debate.
The debate was woefully lacking on foreign policy. It hurts Democrats when this happens. I find it startling, especially considering what we’re facing in the world. I don’t think there was one single question on terrorism. On that point alone it seemed pre-Bush in reality, but that’s not Clinton or Obama’s fault. But it was eerily absent, which is not good for party presentation. It wouldn’t have happened to the Republicans. Democrats need to learn to inject the topics if we must, because we’re clearly the better leaders and deeper thinkers on national security.
In the end, I believe Obama still looked like the challenger to Clinton’s leader role even though they’re supposed to be competing as equals.
When picking a president, though Obama is a gifted, talented man, Hillary Clinton is simply in a different league.
From the moment they walked out on the stage, an African American and a woman, the Democrats won. Whomever wins the nomination, whomever wins the election, Democrats won. And America won.
Eugene Robinson said that that was the most electric moment of the night, and it was for me too. I did not expect to feel that way. I knew this already. But seeing it made it different. It just did. John Edwards said he was getting out of the way of history. And as powerful as his message and campaign were, he was right.
It was pretty clear to me that Obama decided going in that he was not going to challenge Hillary in a confrontational way. I think that is a huge mistake, and I think on the strength of this performance, Hillary will all but wrap things up next Tuesday.
My analysis: Hillary’s weakness is that she is often unlikeable. Obama’s strength is that he is eminently likeable. Obama should have done everything he could to rattle Hillary so her unlikeability would surface as it inevitably does when she gets pissed. We’ve all seen it: she gets that shrill, defensive, haughty, entitled “how dare you” demeanor, her face tightens, her frozen smile seems even more phony than usual.
Barack Obama may not have scored a dramatic knock-out blow, as I am sure we might have wished, given Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday edge. But hopefully he established the basis for a Super Tuesday choice based on contrasting potential candidacies. Here is what I think he accomplished:
Obama showed he could defend a his position of having been consistently against the Iraq War. Being able to take this into a conflict with McCain or Romney is of key importance. Obama won that role hands down. Hillary Clinton could be skewered because of her inconsistent position.
Obama showed he can appeal to conservatives and centrists, Republicans and Independents. Not to mention bringing young and new voters to the table. His appeal lies in his refusal to accept coercion the quid pro quo of a workable health care policy. In essence, the reason Obama will not recite the universal mantra is because people’s dignity is taken away when they are forced to do what is good for them. Hillary Clinton may have a flair for bi-partisanship in the Senate but it is hard to suggest that she has the potential reach of Obama.
Against these positives, what did Hillary Clinton show? I think she showed that she could actually be a President, but she left an open question whether she was capable of achieving what she seeks to achieve.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.