by WonkoKevin

Last night’s debate at Dartmouth University in New Hampshire (full transcript here) is being reported by MSM as a fight between Hillary Clinton and the other contenders.  While that dynamic was obvious, I thought the debate was notable for the multiple lines of fracture that emerged, as candidates vied to differentiate themselves from both Clinton and each other.  Since it’s obvious that Clinton will be opposed seriously by someone, it is these secondary fractures which may be more telling and important.

In terms of Clinton v. everyone else, everyone attacked Clinton at one point or another, but I thought by far the most effective was John Edwards.  Tim Russert provided opportunities for Edwards to clearly define stances that were different from Clinton’s (Iraq troop withdrawal, social security fix), and Edwards pounced on those opportunities.  I thought Edwards was the most energetic debater last night, and clearly is very much “in stride” with his message and delivery.  Edwards has been running in third in NH, and this performance may help him.

Clinton’s performance was mixed.  She benefitted from a positive TV image–her outfit matched the backdrop she was set up against perfectly, and the TV cameras were positioned to give her the best angle; she could look left, right, and straight ahead, whereas it seemed the other candidates were mostly caught looking left or right.  I agree with MSNBC’s assessment–she was debating for the general election, where Edwards and the others were debating for the convention.  She was good on the defense, avoiding saying anything that could come back to haunt her later.  But one has to wonder whether this move to the defense is a bit premature.  There were a few instances where Russert tried to push her where she didn’t want to go, and she refused; we’ll have to see today how well this sat with liberal bloggers.

Barack Obama was apparently sick yesterday, and it showed.  With one exception about halfway through the debate where he talked about diversity and the need to come together (”there was a time when I was considered different, and Bill Richardson was considered different”), it was a poor performance, lacking energy and a coherent vision.

Perhaps the biggest fracture last night was between those candidates who would commit to removing all US troops from Iraq by the end of their first term (Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel), and those who would not (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden).  To the extent that liberal voters are looking for a clear promise for no “residual forces”, they know now they aren’t going to get such a promise from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.  This leaves them with a choice amongst the other four.  Richardson and Kucinich have been most specific on this issue, and Bill Richardson scored points yesterday with a video about withdrawal.  But with one or two exceptions, I thought Richardson did not do himself any good last night.  He is not an effective sixty second responder.

Joe Biden used a 75-23 vote win on his Iraq bill (which suggests a soft partition of Iraq) to drive home that while the others could talk–he could be effective in actually getting things done with Republicans.  I thought Chris Dodd and Biden continued to show the difficult time they have differentiating themselves from one another, and while both did OK during the debate, I thought both did better on the MSNBC aftershow.

Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Edwards used another vote to draw a difference between themselves and the others–the Senate’s non-binding resolution stating that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization.  They claimed that the resolution gives the administration a pass to go to war with Iran; Clinton voted for the resolution, while Dodd and Biden voted against it, and Obama did not vote.  If the U.S. does take military action against Iran, and if this angers Democratic voters (it will anger some, it’s not clear to me that it will anger a majority of them), this is another possible faultline.

Odd moment of the night: Mike Gravel saying that it was OK that he went bankrupt because it was only the credit card companies who got screwed, and they deserve it.  Um, not exactly a presidential response.  And, defaults on credit card loans = increased risk, and increased risk means higher interest rates, which affects everyone.

In summary, I’d give this one to Edwards, with a strong nod to Biden because he was able to tout his leadership in getting Republicans on board with his Iraq plan. 

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 27th, 2007 at 6:43 am and is filed under Kucinich, Debates, Gravel, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Obama. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.