New Hampshire debate open thread

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 18:35:05 PM CDT

 I'm taping the debate and will watch it later, after kids are in bed.

Meanwhile, tell us what you think--who won?

Who surprised you?

Whose supporters will be cringing?

UPDATE: Deeth's liveblog is here: http://jdeeth.blogsp...

SECOND UPDATE: I watched the rerun on CNN. By the way, in case you missed it,  you can find the transcript on the CNN site here:

http://transcripts.c...

Several candidates did well, and I don't think anyone made any big mistakes.

The format was much better than the first debate on MSNBC, and most of the questions were not bad, although Wolf did toss out some really stupid ones, like the hypothetical trying to trick them into saying they would or wouldn't bomb Osama bin Laden if innocent people would die in the attack.

Quick reaction, taking the candidates in alphabetical order:

Joe Biden helped himself. He's got a lot of experience on the Sunday talk shows, and he knows how to answer a question in 60 seconds. Also, on a superficial level, if you are not listening closely to the content of his answers, he sounds confident and forceful. He comes across as a strong candidate, not a guy hovering between the second and third tiers. The substance of his answers was pretty good too. My favorite moment was when he took the question about earmarks and tied it to public financing of elections--big money in politics is obviously behind most of those middle-of-the-night earmarks that could not withstand scrutiny.

Hillary Clinton did ok, but to me she sounded more defensive than she did during the first debate. I thought she handled the trick question about don't ask, don't tell well. I sense that she is playing these debates not to lose, and is mainly focused on avoiding big mistakes. She looked mad when Edwards emphasized that he was wrong to vote for the war, and that Obama was right. Edwards was pointing toward Obama, saying he was right, but from the perspective of the cameras, it looked like he was pointing at Clinton, who was standing in between Edwards and Obama. 

Chris Dodd had substantive answers to the questions, but he is less animated as a speaker than some of the others. He didn't get as much time to answer questions, which was a bit unfair. I liked how he said the first thing he would do as president would be to restore some of our constitutional freedoms, and he would do that on the first day. At some point, I think Dodd is going to have to take a bigger risk in a debate to try to get some media coverage, because right now they don't seem to give him the time of day.

John Edwards helped himself. Like Biden, he came across as a strong and confident speaker. He went out of his way to draw distinctions between himself and the others, and Clinton in particular. He answered the questions well, and on a few occasions got the discussion back on track after it had meandered away from the original question. I liked the line about how the job of the president is to lead, not to legislate. I liked how he pointed out that Clinton and Obama didn't announce in advance whether they would vote for or against the recent Iraq war supplemental funding bill. 

Mike Gravel stuck to form as the angry old man, calling out everyone serving in Congress, and saying Americans need to "grow up" and get used to paying more for gasoline. Although he is not running a real campaign outside of these debates, I am glad he is up there showing everyone what a real liberal looks like (hint to wingnuts: Hillary Clinton is not a real liberal).

Dennis Kucinich has a coherent message and is playing a similar role to Gravel in this campaign. He is going to get a negligible number of votes, even fewer than in 2004, but he is up there showing what the left of the Democratic Party  looks like. His best moment was when he advocated for a single-payer health care system rather than a for-profit system. Unfortunately, there is no chance in hell that single payer could ever pass the Congress.

Barack Obama seemed subdued. He comes across as calm and confident, and he answered the questions well, but I am not sure that he made up any ground on Clinton. It's going to be a little tough for him, because he is running as a different kind of politician who can unite us, and that image would take a beating if he started attacking his rivals. But at some point he may need to come across a little more forcefully (a la Biden) if he wants to dent Hillary's inevitability campaign in New Hampshire. My favorite moment was when he rejected the premise of the question about English as an official language. It played to the image he is trying to cultivate as a uniter, but more important, it was a step toward holding journalists accountable for the framing of their questions.

Bill Richardson's performance was an improvement on the first debate, but he still seemed a little uncomfortable cramming his answers into 60 seconds or less. I liked that he mentioned solar and other forms of renewable energy, not just ethanol. I don't think he made the sale with many people tonight, but I don't think he said anything to inspire undecideds to cross him off their list either. I don't think he's convincing when he says you can get universal health care without any tax increases. A little more straight talk is in order here.