CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Jan. 6, 2008 – 2:36 a.m.
The Democratic Debate: CQ Politics’ Mosts and Bests
By Annie Shuppy, CQ Staff
A pared-down panel of four Democratic presidential candidates met in New Hampshire for a nationally televised debate Saturday night, just three days before that state’s key primary, and spent much of the session giving their interpretations of the campaign’s prevailing theme of political change — and disagreeing about which of them is best capable of delivering it.
Fresh off his strong first-place showing in the Iowa caucuses that opened the presidential nominating process on Jan. 3, first-term Illinois Sen. Barack Obama maintained his theme that he can be a transformational figure in American politics. As he often has, he cast his charisma-driven campaign to become the nation’s first African-American president as a chance to bridge partisan, regional and demographic differences and bring people together to address the nation’s problems.
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton , wife of former President Bill Clinton, sought to shrug off her disappointing third-place finish in Iowa, saying she has fought for constructive change for more than three decades in public life — and has the experience she contends Obama and Iowa runner-up John Edwards lack to actually accomplish rather than just talk about change.
Edwards, meanwhile, cast both Clinton and Obama, with their lavishly funded presidential campaigns, as too tied in to the Washington establishment. Less than four years distant from his final year as a senator from North Carolina and the vice presidential nominee on the 2004 Democratic ticket headed by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry , Edwards again on Saturday brought the aggressively populist edge that has defined his campaign, saying he is uniquely capable of taking on corporate special interests he claims are inimical to the interests of average working Americans.
The discussion often became tense and heated, as the candidates engaged each other personally under the unusually free-wheeling format employed by ABC News anchorman Charles Gibson, the debate’s lead moderator. During the first half of a debate that ran a bit over its scheduled 90 minutes, Gibson threw out a few topics to the candidates and let them have at it. The resulting back-and-forth often allowed the fourth participant, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson , to utilize the diplomatic skills he honed as a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and ad hoc envoy to hot spots around the world.
The four had the stage to themselves, as ABC News — which sponsored the debate with New Hampshire TV station WMUR and the Facebook Web site — determined that longshots Dennis J. Kucinich , the liberal House veteran from Ohio, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel did not meet the criteria for participation that was based on the Iowa caucus outcome and polling done nationally and in New Hampshire. Two well-known Democratic senators who had been in the race, Connecticut’s Christopher J. Dodd and Delaware’s Joseph R. Biden Jr. , dropped out after running poorly in Iowa.
Here are CQ Politics’ Mosts and Bests from the Democratic debate:
Best opportunity for the candidates to distinguish themselves on foreign policy: Moderator Gibson asked the Democrats under what conditions they would consider using force against Pakistan to root out terrorists who might try to use a nuclear weapon against the United States.
Obama and Edwards both said they would employ military force in Pakistan if they had definitive information on fugitive al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden’s location. But they also discussed long-term initiatives to get rid of the world’s nuclear weapons. Clinton recalled her husband’s efforts as president to target bin Laden, but also highlighted the consequences of such action.
“I think it’s imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike be given the most careful consideration,” she said.
Exchange most likely to get re-played on television and on the Internet: Obama and Edwards had just spoken about their drive to spur real change in Washington. After Clinton criticized Obama’s health care plan, Edwards defended him, saying they are similar as “powerful voices for change.” Edwards added that the “forces of status quo are going to attack us.”
Clinton asserted that her record and experience show she is most capable of delivering the change the others prescribe.
“Obviously, making change is not about what you believe, it’s not about a speech you made. It’s about working hard,” she said.
Best moment of humor between Obama and Clinton: After debate co-moderator Scott Spradling, a news anchor from WMUR-TV, told Clinton that many voters see Obama as more likable, she said, “Well, that hurts my feelings.”
“He’s very likable, I agree with that,” Clinton said of Obama, adding, “I don’t think I’m that bad.”
Then Obama jumped in. “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”
Best laugh line: Following a tough exchange among Obama, Edwards and Clinton, Richardson said, “I’ve been in hostage negotiations that are more civil than this.”
Best mix of sports and politics (and best tweak of the Republican debate that immediately preceded the Democratic one): Obama was asked whether he was paying attention to what the Republican hopefuls were saying about him during their debate. “I was going back and forth between the Republicans and football,” Obama said, noting the Washington Redskins lost to the Seattle Seahawks in a first-round NFL playoff game.
Comments
How can a debate between the candidates occur when all the candidates not invited? This is not democracy in action, and is an example of the media trying to make up the minds of the electorate. Disgusting. Kucinich needed to be in that debate; he is one real voice for change among the pack.
I thought Charlie Gibson did an excellent job moderating the debate. Excellent. Also, I thought Clinton did a fabulous job answering the Pakistan question in such detail--particularly about notifying Pakistan about an attack so as not to spark off a war with India. Obama and Edwards looked dumbfounded by her response. I like Obama, but for him being such an inspiring and charasmatic speaker, frankly, I don't recall much of what he said last night. Good speaker, but no substance--except for the kumbayah mentality towards Republicans. Edwards is after the VP slot so he was doing a great suck-up job to Obama. But I will give Edwards points for making an impassioned speech for the middle class. And I admire the fact that he has indeed run such a fantastic campaign with such little money--no lobbyist money involved. Can anyone tell me why Richardson is still on board? He takes up time bragging about himself--but at least it was two against two when it came to the debate about experience vs. change. After 7 years of inept, inexperienced Bush, I'll take experience any day. The kumbayahs just don't cut it.
When asked what he has accomplished during his six years in the Senate, Edwards brought up the patient's bill of rights that he had worked with McCain and Kennedy. He gave viewers a false impression that the bill has become law. However, as Clinton quickly pointed out that the bill was never passed in the House, Edwards finally had to acknowledge that fact. So much for the man who always say he will be honest and truthful to the American people. And yet, the fact and the matter is that he is just another politician.
Silver has it exactly right. I've listened to Mr. Obama's rhetoric for many years now, being in Illinois, and he's a gifted speker. But there's just no there, there. He's very likely to win the nomination now that he has such momentum, but I fear the time will come when we have a bad case of buyers' remorse; when the Republicans carve him up and show what an emplty suit he is, we'll regret our cavalier and unjuct treatment of Mrs. Clinton.
Peg, your comment would have more validity if Kucinich hadn't participated in the previous 15 debates. He had his chance to convince the public that he is the best candidate and still polls at 1%. Sorry but the idea he was unfairly treated isn't an accurate assessment. Silver, I would have to disagree on the Gibson comment. I thought his questions were full of faulty premises. He wouldn't let go of the idea the surge is working, and mischaracterized the salaries of the professors on the tax questions. And of all the things I remember about last night, it was how Hillary was visibly angry at the assertions she is the "Status Quo." Not very presidential looking.
I believe that Hillary hit it out of the ballpark last night. So much scrutiny is put on every word Clinton says and I wonder when the lazy or "in the tank for Obama" press is going to do some digging about Obama. I guess she'll have to research Obama and Edwards by herself since NBC is on Obama's payroll.
Personally I've had enough of the Clinton "experience" Hillary had one big chance to do something about healthcare in this country and very quickly blew it. She was very promptly removed from any substanative policy decisions for the rest of Bill's presidency. Hillary has given us the "experience" of more partisan hatred than we've had in this county in modern times. Hillary has given us the "experience" of dragging this country into an illegal and unjust war. She has given us the "experience" of giving Bush the go ahead to use military force in Iran. If elected, we will continue to have the experience of a highly partisan atmosphere in DC where no real change is possible. Obama has more experience in elective office than any of the other Dems. He has shown proven leadership. As he said last night, words do matter...words have the power to inspire a people to rise up and make big changes....not incremental changes. He has my vote and active support.
I think the country will regret it if Edwards is not chosen as the Democratic nominee and eventually president. He is intelligent, an eloquent speaker, and is someone who can bring change to our country. He has real plans for the future and isn't yet bought by Washington as the other candidates are. It is up to us to select him as the next president so we can be able to avoid the abyss our country is heading to due to climate change, terrorism, unnecessary poverty, health care problems, corporate greed and more. JOHN EDWARDS '08...for our future, for our children's future!
I THINK CHARLES GIBSON DID A EXCELLENT JOB. I GLAD HE PUT TOUGH QUESTIONS TO THESE LYING DISHONEST REBUBLICANS THERE THE REASON WERE IN THIS WAR BECAUSE OF THERE PRESIDENT BUSH. OBAMA IS VERY GOOD BUT HAS NO FORIEGN EXPERIENCE AND HILLARY IS MORE EXPERIENCE. AND MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE DEMOCRATS BETTER WAKE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH SHE IS THE RIGHT CHOICE DONT OVER LOOK HER SHE WILL BE A GOOD PRESIDENT!
I'm for Hillary for sure now too since Biden is out. Yes, Obama has more elective experience, but is that everything? And, what has he shown for it? So he was in the state senate and probably had great constituent service. But does that translate into being active in policy-making? The only thing I think of during his U.S. Senate tenure is that he missed the vote on Iran - for which he criticized Hillary. That bothers me - that was an important vote... and he can' even show up even though ALL the other candidates did? Obama's a great preacher - and I should know, I'm the son of one. But does that translate to being able to lead the nation? Great words, great rhetoric, no record to speak of. Hillary on the other hand has been an incredibly active senator whether it be working on children's health, working with and for 9/11 victims, with and for the armed services and a host of other things. She proved herself well enough to conservative upstate NY voters enough to lose only 3 counties in the whole state during her re-election. Go Hillary!
Amazing how the dems always get softball questions and never have to answer tough questions.
As with all journalists, you barely mention anything about Gov. Richardson. When it came to the responses, he was the first one to state specific lists on HOW he'd get anything done. Everyone else mentioned the WHAT with tons of generalities. No one else knew anything about the Pakistan constitution. Gov. Richardson is the only candidate with executive experience. YES -- it does make a difference. Leading change without leadership experience is nothing more than chaos. Herding kittens would get better results. Sen. Clinton has experience thru her husband (if you want to call it that). Her record is one of well-intended attempts resulting in failures. Sen. Edwards has experience fighting the good fight for "the little guy". Something we haven't seen in a long time. That is still not executive experience. Sen. Obama has almost no experience in much of anything. He has 8 yrs. in the IL General Assembly -- backing down from a fight. His record on women's issues is appalling. Voting "present" is unacceptable. He won his senate seat because there was no serious GOP candidate. He began running for president almost from the moment he walked on The Hill, and taxpayers still provide the salary for it. He reminds me of Ronald Reagan. He talks well with no substance behind it so he's nothing more than a snake oil salesman. Taxpayers should not allow senators to run for president on their dime. We deserve a refund. Democratic voters need to really listen to the candidates. The MSM -- including CQ -- needs to give Gov. Richardson equal time. He deserves it more than all the others.
Are Repuglicans truly necessary?
If experience is what makes the difference, we could elect Dick Cheney. Great presidents have been people of great judgment, not often people of experience. The argument is worthless.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: