Observations on the debate

[ProSense]

from The Carpetbagger Report:

Observations from my notes:

* Clinton got a little tripped up on the Robert Johnson flap. On the one hand, she said we should take Johnson at his word. On the other, she said Johnson’s comments were “out of bounds.” I’m pretty sure those two positions contradict each other.

* Clinton also refused to respond either way to a question about whether Obama and Edwards are qualified to serve as president. A simple “of course” would have sufficed.

* Edwards, responding to a question about his greatest weakness, noted his emotional responses “to pain that I see around me.” Um, John? I know it’s a stupid question, but “caring too much” isn’t really a weakness.

* There was a fascinating exchange between Obama and Clinton when it came to Obama’s greatest weakness (he was refreshingly candid in his response, talking about his inability to micro-manage a bureucracy). Clinton used this to hint that Obama was like Bush. Obama turned it around: “The point in terms of bringing together a team is that you get the best people, and you’re able to execute and hold them accountable. There’s something, if we’re going to evaluate George Bush and his failures as president, that I think are much more important. He was very efficient. He was on time all the time and, you know, had — (laughter) — you know, I — I’m sure he never lost a paper. I’m sure he knows where it is. (Laughter.) What he could not do is to listen to perspectives that didn’t agree with his ideological predispositions. What he could not do is to bring in different people with different perspectives and get them to work together.”

* When Clinton started talking about “sovereign wealth funds,” it was a reminder that when it comes to policy details, she’s second to no one, in either party’s presidential fields.

* Edwards was confronted with a question about his vote for a 2001 bankruptcy bill, which he now “regrets.” It pointed to a problem that came up a few times last night — Edwards’ Senate career. He voted for the war, for a bad bankruptcy bill, and for Yucca Mountain (twice). It might have led the average viewer to wonder which Edwards is the real one, the moderate senator or the liberal candidate.

* Clinton got a little tripped up on her own vote on the 2001 bankruptcy bill, saying she voted for it, but was “happy that it never became law.” If she didn’t want it become law, why’d she vote for it?

* Obama touted public financing of campaigns, which was good to hear.

* He also took on the ridiculous email smear, and the “likeable enough” flap, both of which he handled very well.

* Edwards’ best answer of the night came in support of benefits for the troops: “They didn’t leave us on our own, we shouldn’t leave them on their own. And we need to narrow this gap between civilian pay and military pay, and help these families with their child care.”

* On the same point, Obama reminded us that his limited Senate career has produced a few substantive victories: “I went to Walter Reed to talk to the wounded warriors who had come back to discover that they were still paying for their meals and their phone calls while in Walter Reed, while rehabbing, which I could not believe. And I was able to gain the cooperation of a Republican- controlled Senate at the time and pass a bill that would eliminate that.”

* None of them want to push gun control, and all of them support allowing military recruiters on college campuses. No big surprises there.

* For all the pleasantries, Obama did criticize Clinton on one thing — politics of fear. Clinton once again suggested that al Qaeda may test the next president, Obama said, “I have to say that when Senator Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack with a new prime minister during a campaign, I think that is part and parcel with what we’ve seen the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points. And I think that’s a mistake.”

Overall, I got the sense that all three believe they’re in pretty good shape, both in Nevada and elsewhere, and knew that getting too aggressive would be a huge risk. Instead, they played it safe and kept it clean.

And once again, I feel compelled to mention something that I always seem to mention after Democratic debates: these three are really, really good candidates. Comparing them to the clowns running for the Republican nomination is breathtaking, given their command of the issues, the seriousness of their agendas, the depth of their visions, and the ability to speak outside of scripted talking points. It’s hard not to watch Obama, Edwards, and Clinton and not be proud of the Democratic Party.

So, what’d you think?

[FrenchieCat]

1. Yep......carpetbagger saw the same debate as me.

Which leans in the favor of Obama.

[AtomicKitten]

2. I thought the debate was illuminating because they were afforded the opportunity to dispel myths.

In fact, I think this was the most illuminating debate to date, and I agree with many of the more subtle points outlined above that were overlooked by the MSM talking heads.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. I think that's a fair analysis. I was getting so angry at Russert/Williams carping on the

BS gossipy, "who said what" crap at the beginning that it wasn't until this morning that I was able to clearly see how well the candidates performed.

MKJ

[Renew Deal]

4. I think the overall quality of the candidates is outstanding.

And light years ahead of the kill em all, throw em out, republicans.

[patrice]

5. I was pleased to hear Edwards say "No permanent bases" again.

I know why he has to give his stump speech, but I was wishing for more from him. I just loved the more conversational tone they all had in the NH debate and wished to hear more policy details, but that was at least partly the stupid questions.

I was very glad to hear Obama say "Public financing of campaigns", but I was pretty disturbed by his answer to the weakness question. Organization is a manifestation of caring about something, not a sine qua non, but at least a mature hallmark of caring.

Again, I understand why, but I sure wish someone would say something about Election Reform.

[OneGrassRoot]

6. After eight years of B*shco never being wrong about anything...

it's refreshing to hear someone admit to mistakes...more than one...JRE has admitted that his Senate career was very eye opening and he was sucked into the ineffectiveness of it all. He admits that he screwed up.

Granted, there needs to be a limit to the screw-ups, but his honesty about the fact that he has screwed up, even while in office, is refreshing to me.

[peace13]

7. One fatal flaw for all three that you missed.

They allowed an invited participant to the debate to be excluded and proceeded without him. No matter how you slice it that is interference in the election process. When will we hear from all candidates and why does that not bother you? This I fear is the nail in America's coffin. I did talk to the DNC folks this morning. My question was, 'When will we have a debate with all of the Democratic candidates?' Her answer, are you ready. 'That is up to the candidates.' Go figure. Peace, Kim

[ihelpu2see]

8. Great points. I too feel that Obama was the only one who answered

the "Greatest strength/ weakness" question honestly.... Edwards was a close second.... I did think Hillary showed her knowledge about issues but did not like how she felt the need to piggy back on answers by Obama and Edwads just to get the last word or have a feel good moment.... For instance the very poignant response of Sen. Obama to the 100 Black Man question about black male youth dropping out of school.... He made a great point about the education system and his own life growing up with out a dad and the moderator was about to move on when Hillary decided to try to "ride" the feel good wave that had just emerged from Mr. Obama's response... It was very obvious and in my mind a tad petty.