-
Welcome to the National Constitutional Center in Philadelphia. The camera pans around the room. It’s tiny! Looks kind of like a Disney ride—one of those magic motion machines. Hopefully the seats rock back and forth and water squirts on the audience.
The set is a lot less flashy than CNN’s. The whole scene is pretty formal, down to Clinton’s conservative gray jacket. Clinton and Obama are both standing at lecterns, instead of the desk meeting we had at the other mano-a-manos.
Also, note the “We the people” banner in the background. Kind of like a Ron Paul ad.
-
Part three of the Clinton vs. Obama debate-a-thon airs tonight (9 p.m., MSNBC), and it’s being billed as the last, final, ultimate one-on-one showdown ever, forever … until Hillary steamrolls Obama in Ohio, and we do it all over again. But the past week has not been kind to Clinton, what with Obama closing the gap in Texas, both sides breaking even in the NAFTA debate, and her “major” foreign-policy speech getting eclipsed by the dress mess. But the debate stage is still her turf, making the drama behind tonight’s face-off slightly less contrived than usual. Here are a few things to look for as you struggle to avoid clicking over to American Idol:
Which Hillary? Clinton has been positively schizophrenic recently, sounding defeated at one moment, angrily brandishing oppo mailers the next, and offering stately disquisitions on foreign affairs for good measure. Which Hillary will we see tonight? If recent history is any indicator, all three! She will probably go easy on the canned lines, however: Last week’s “Xerox” quip bombed, and her policy-based attacks have been more effective, anyway.
The new front-runner. Obama turned in a solid performance at last Thursday’s debate, arguing Hillary to a draw. But a flubbed answer or ill-advised put-down can undo everything. Look for Obama to stick with last week’s formula: shrug off attacks as petty, beat back Clinton’s “experience” case, and insist that inspiration is more important than bullet points.
Negative Nancies. Over the weekend, Hillary held up an Obama mailer attacking her health-care plan and record on NAFTA and challenged him to “meet me in Ohio.” Well, here they are. In most debates, the candidates leave their harshest words at the door. But this could be Clinton’s last chance to ding Obama for resorting to negative attacks while claiming to represent a new kind of politics. Obama has plenty of ammo in that clip, too, the Wajir photo being the freshest (if not the most incriminating) example.
Trade pandering. Nowhere are the negative effects of NAFTA more palpable than Ohio, where manufacturing jobs have dropped steeply. As a result, Obama and Clinton have spent recent weeks flogging each other over trade, each claiming that the other has said positive things about NAFTA. Both are sort of right, which makes the argument as close to a stalemate as can be—and therefore likely to generate plenty of heat. The Tim Russert Quote Machine will no doubt be in top form. As for Ohio-targeting, Clinton can relax slightly. She retains a lead in Ohio polls, where demographics—more rural whites, fewer urban blacks—skew to her benefit.
Network tensions: When MSNBC’s David Shuster suggested that the Clinton campaign was “pimping out” Chelsea Clinton, the campaign threatened to boycott all future NBC debates. They later reneged (for a campaign that’s pushing for more debates, it doesn’t make sense to skip one), but residual tensions could flare up, especially if they bring up the media’s treatment of the candidates.
Check back at 9 p.m. for a live blog of the debate. And maybe a little American Idol.
-
Last week, Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle (RIP) sent the Obama campaign a letter throwing down the gauntlet and challenging Barack Obama to a debate a week—a sort of Lincoln-Douglas series that would either captivate America or bore it to death. Obama agreed to attend two debates between now and March 4, one in Texas and one in Cleveland, Ohio, but said that any more would be overkill.
Now Clinton has upped the ante. Today she begins airing a new ad in Wisconsin—Obama-land, by all accounts—challenging him to debate her in Milwaukee.
The spot doesn’t quite “go negative.” But it sure does contain fighting words: “Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than to have to answer questions.” It also has all the traditional language of a negative ad, with side-by-side pictures, a smarmy narrator, and a Baroque quartet. Still, it falls far short of trash talk.
As we’ve said before, having more debates benefits Clinton: It gets Obama off the trail, where he flourishes, and onto the stage, where she does. For a while, it seemed as if Clinton might reject the NBC-hosted Cleveland debate in light of MSNBC anchor David Shuster’s “pimped out” comments—an odd move, given that she has been calling for more debates. But today Clinton confirmed that she would be attending. As Ben Smith puts it, her campaign has apparently decided it’s “getting more mileage out of the debate theme than out of the war with MSNBC.”
Indeed. On a conference call at this very moment, Howard Wolfson is arguing that Obama “owes it to the people of Wisconsin” to debate Clinton in their state, adding that Obama is “hiding from the people of Wisconsin.” This claim—even for campaign spin—is patently absurd. This week, Obama will have held eight events in Wisconsin. Clinton has held zero and has none scheduled. (Chelsea and Bill are making stops, however.) Furthermore, every debate is a national event. There’s nothing stopping residents of Wisconsin from watching the Texas and Ohio debates.
Obama’s decision to accept two debates and reject the rest walks the line between cooperation and independence; he appears accommodating, but not overly so. Spokesman Tommy Vietor dismissed the latest Clinton spot as a “political stunt to get headlines.” “Look, they’ve debated 18 times in this primary,” he said. “They’re going to debate two additional times. … Sen. Obama believes debates are important. That’s why we’re doing 20 of them total.”
To waste so much breath on the “debate debate” seems silly, but it’s the sort of micro-battle that gets attention in a tight race. And with Obama slated to take 10 states (and territories) in a row, Clinton needs the free media. But why settle for that, when you can get free media about the free media?
-
The candidates get to ask each other the questions—how cute. Yet not even Q&A sessions can spruce up this snoozer of a debate. Here's who asked whom what, and why:
Romney asks Giuliani about China: Look how far we've come since autumn, when Romney and Giuliani were at each other's throats. What's more important here is that Romney gave Giuliani a charity question rather than talking to McCain, which was a gutsy move because of its timidness. Romney had the chance to set the tone for the next five days by ribbing McCain on immigration, fiscal policy, or a lack of executive experience. But instead, Romney decided to trust the polls and shy away from his mean-guy image. Considering he didn't do that in Iowa or New Hampshire and ended up losing, it might be a good move.
McCain asks Huckabee about the fair tax: This is a strange choice. McCain could have asked Mitt about his flip-flopping (which he doesn't hesitate to do in a new Web ad), but instead he turns to Huckabee and makes him seem like an economic pariah. A fine gesture, but McCain isn't after Huck's supporters, and Huck's supporters don't want McCain as a second choice. His question should have been directed at Romney to chip away at his maybe-lead in the polls.
Paul asks McCain about the economy: If Paul was determined to ask McCain a question, why not ask him about the war in Iraq? Considering they are as far apart on this issue as Iraq and America are on the globe, it seemed strange to fall back on the economy.
Huck asks Romney about gun control: Finally, somebody puts the press on another candidate. Huck claims Romney isn't consistent about his support for an assault-weapons ban, and Romney answers smoothly. He leans on President Bush's own support of the ban to bolster his support of it and wiggles his way out of another potential flip-flop trap.
Giuliani asks Romney and McCain about the national catastrophe fund: Giuliani, realizing he's screwed unless he goes on the offensive, resorts to his bread-and-butter issue in Florida: hurricane defense. Giuliani has been advocating a national catastrophe fund that Floridians favor because it helps with hurricanes but that none of the other candidates likes because, as Romney put it, Iowans shouldn't have to subsidize insurance efforts in Florida. Giuliani gets points for making sure Florida residents know that he's the only guy who likes the fund, but looks like a bit of a tax-and-spender to a national audience that doesn't care about hurricane insurance. It's a sacrifice he's willing to make since at this point he's essentially running to be Florida's governor (like Romney ran to be Michigan's governor, Huck Iowa's governor, and McCain ran to be New Hampshire's senator).
Despite the brief glimpse into the candidates' strategies, this debate quirk fell flat. There was no dialogue or back-and-forth, which meant this was a glorified Q&A. At this point, five days before Florida, we don't need to baby the candidates with time limits and one-question, one-answer rules. They're adults; it's time to treat them as such.
-
Has anybody else noticed that the majority of the debates have had awful sound quality? Tonight's is no different, with a constant, hollow echo sound whenever anybody speaks. It's especially bad when they go out into the audience. I may be wrong, but I don't remember this being an issue at the last Democratic debate on CNN, though it was an issue with the YouTube debates. You'd think that after more than a dozen of these things, they could have figured it out.
-
And we're back at yet another of these powwows. Thus far co-moderator Tim Russert has tried to play Gotcha with McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, yet none has taken the bait. Russert seems consumed with trying to get the candidates to say they don't trust one another, but his craving for conflict just looks desperate. Didn't he learn from the Democratic debate on Monday? Less moderator involvement means more squabbling.
-
A few months back, the Republicans all made their cases by saying they
were the best candidates to beat Hillary. Now the Dems are talking the
same way about McCain.
“It’s becoming increasingly likely that John McCain is the Republican candidate,” John Edwards says. And he’s the best candidate to beat the Arizona senator: “I can go anywhere in America and compete against John McCain and win."
UPDATE 9:58: This turns out to be the closing theme. (If you don't count their filler about Martin Luther King, Jr.) Edwards says he can beat McCain because he doesn't accept money from lobbyists. Given that McCain is such a strong proponent of campaign finance reform, "I think it’s dangerous to send someone against him who presents a contrast to what he represents." In other words, Hillary has lobbyist donors and McCain will punish her for that.
Hillary says that in fact she is the best person to beat McCain because a general election match-up against him will be about national security. She says she's "better equipped" to handle international challenges than these two little boys.
Obama agrees that McCain would make national security the focus, but says that rather than out-gunning him, the Democratic nominee "has to be someone who can serve as a strong contrast to overcome politics of fear." What he doesn't say is that McCain has huge appeal to independents and even some Democrats. Against someone with such broad support, Obama's own appeal to indies and even some Republicans could carry weight.
-
What could have been an incredibly awkward moment somehow isn’t. The question is for Obama: “Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?”
Obama handles it with poise: “I think that Bill Clinton did have—still has—an enormous affinity with the African-American community, and that’s well earned. Like John, what I’m inspired by is young men and women who grew up in the South when segregation was still taking place.”
But more importantly, he says, “I’d have to investigate Bill’s dancing abilities before I accurately judge whether or not he is in fact a brother.”
"I’m sure that can be arranged," Clinton replies, laughing.
Worth noting: It's no small feat to crack jokes about race that don't make the entire room uncomfortable.
-
After spending the first half shivving Obama in the back, Edwards tries to make a joke about Obama's vocal tic of repeating lines. It falls sort of flat. For a second, I worry it could become Edwards' second pink jacket moment. But Obama saves the moment with a zinger:
Obama: “Charlie [Rangel] is absolutely right that Americans should vote for what’s best for them, their children, and their country. … in the same way that Hillary would tell you women should vote for what’s best for them, their children, and their country.”
Edwards: Why don’t you say that a little more often.
Pause, nervous audience laughter.
Obama: … Same as John wants white males to vote for what’s best for …
Laughter.
Five minutes later, Obama makes a similar joke. In this race, he says, "You’ve got an African-American, a woman, and John." Edwards doesn't seem to be laughing this time.
-
Obama is stuck in the middle in more ways than one.
Neither Clinton nor Edwards is buying his claim that his health care plan is superior to their proposals for universal coverage. Edwards compares Obama’s attitude toward health care to George W. Bush’s attitude toward Social Security—i.e. they have the choice to buy in or not to. Hillary claims his views toward health care have “evolved.”
Obama argues that his plan prioritizes affordability over universality. He’d rather lower the cost of health care than force a family who can’t afford it to buy it. And responding to Hillary’s accusation, he says, “What’s ‘evolved’ is your presentation of my positions—which has happened frequently over the course of this campaign."
Seriously, this debate is phenomenal. It has both policy minutae and petty name-calling!
-
These two lines seem to sum up the current two-way Enemy at the Gates-style sniping duel:
Hillary tells Obama: “You never take responsibility for any vote.”
Obama counters: “It’s important that people aren’t willing to say anything just to get elected.”
No wonder Edwards is feeling left out. When he finally gets a chance to speak, he sets his sights on Obama, taking the senator to task for voting “present” more than 100 times as an Illinois state senator. Obama says it’s not fair to focus on a relative handful of his 4000 votes. Edwards responds, “It’s the same thing you’ve done to us. What’s fair is fair.”
Edwards has spent the last two weeks known as Obama’s unspoken ally against Hillary. Chances are he’s sick of the lapdog reputation.
-
The past four minutes have seen some of the biggest slams in the race so far.
The question was about fiscal responsibility, but the answers quickly devolved into an exchange over what Obama meant when he said Republicans were the party of ideas in recent decades.
First, Obama drobs the B-bomb, denouncing it when “President Clinton says I wasn’t opposed to war from the start or says it’s a ‘fairy tale’ that I opposed the war.” Hillary clarifies that she (and her husband) were talking about Obama’s actions (or lack thereof) on Iraq in the Senate.
Obama then lets this one loose: While I was a community organizer in Chicago, “you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.” POW!
In her response, Clinton retaliates: I was working to help poor families “while you were representing your slumlord Rezko in his real estate.” BLAM!
The audience loves it: “Ooooooo.” You half expect them to start chanting, “JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!”
Hillary smiles: “We’re just getting warmed up.”
UPDATE 8:38 p.m.: Forgot to include Obama's attack on the Clinton legacy itself: "These are the kinds of political games we are accustomed to."
-
Wolf Blitzer promises that this debate will be “about the issues.” Is that a slam on MSNBC for last week?
In practice, that apparently means a loosey goosy debate format. In the first half, time limits are more guidelines than rules. In the second half, “no rules." In other words, you're done speaking with Wolf says so.
-
Today's debate has a lot hanging over it: Today's market crash, major squabbles of the past week, plus the race issue, which gets extra emphasis seeing as it's MLK's birf. Speaking of which, how many people want to watch a debate on their day off? CNN's taking a ratings gamble with this one ...
Also, from local news of the weird: The same people who made last week's creepy Republican presidential Mt. Rushmore imitation have constructed their own Democratic version. See it here.
-
The decision to let the candidates ask each other questions—risky, by cable-network standards—was probably the best part of the debate.
For one, it led to some of the most substantive exchanges of the night: Edwards asked Obama about lobbyist money. Obama asked Edwards about the question of residual troops in Iraq. And Hillary asked Obama whether he would co-sponsor legislation to require congressional approval for pacts with the Iraqi government.
The format also reveals a lot about the candidates. They’re judged for not just their answers, but their questions, too. It brings out the subtlety in their thinking, exposes when their thinking lacks subtlety, and shows how they perceive their opponents’ weaknesses. Plus, that’s a president’s job—to ask questions of people who know more than they do. So sometimes it's more useful to know what questions your president will ask than what answers he or she will pretend to have.
-
Obama gets the first (and probably the last) sincere laugh of the the night.
A moderator asks: Is there a history of Hispanics not voting for black candidates?
"Not in Illinois," says Obama. "They voted for me."
It gets laughs, but it also serves a purpose: Reminding Latino voters that it's OK to vote for him.
-
John Edwards answers each question as if he'd been asked, Sen. Edwards, can you please recite a few of your talking points on Subject X for us?
Brian Williams asks, "What’s the problem with English as an official language?" Edwards takes a few minutes to weave in and out of immigration reform specifics—penalties, pathway to citizenship, education—and finally, after Williams reminds him what the question was, manages to squeeze out this answer: "I think that [learning English] should be a requirement for being an American citizen."
Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
-
All three candidates agree to enforce the law that cuts off federal funding for schools that don't offer ROTC programs. In their answers, Obama and Clinton take a few minutes to praise soldiers serving in Iraq. Edwards turns his answer toward veterans' benefits. Seeing a missed opportunity, Obama and Clinton both butt in and follow up with 30 seconds on veterans.
A friend points out: Watch Russert bring this back in two years when the candidates realize they would be forcing schools to violate their own nondiscrimination policies. (The subtext to the whole question is that many schools oppose Don't Ask, Don't Tell.) If so, he has just introduced a brilliant new questioning tactic: the future gotcha!
-
Here comes the good part. (Fingers crossed.)
NBC has decided to let the candidates ask each other two questions--wait, says Brian Williams, make that one question. (So this is why they didn't let Kucinich in—it would have taken too long.) Sounds like a gotcha opportunity. A better idea: Let each candidate ask the moderators a question!
John Edwards asks Obama whether he thinks lobbyists expect favors in return for their money. Obama starts by clarifying that he doesn't take money from special interests, then elaborates on how he's committed to reducing lobbyists' influence in Washington.
Hillary asks Obama if he'll co-sponsor legislation to say that any action with the Iraqi government has to be ratified by Congress. (Kind of like this bill.) He says yes! Or at least he sounds vaguely positive about the idea. Finally, something we can all agree on.
Obama uses his question to ask Edwards about the details of pulling troops out of Iraq. This format is refreshing, no?
-
We've moved on from the Awkward, Useless Questions segment to the Economy segment.
All the candidates talk about how they'd cut down on foreign ownership. Edwards points to how this trend hurts the middle class more than the wealthiest. Hillary says she'd cut down on home foreclosures by freezing interest rates. Obama ties our dependence on foreign ownership to energy policy.
Only Hillary tailors her answer to the audience. She talks about how home foreclosures and bankruptcy laws are "black and brown issues" that affect minorities disproportionately. In Las Vegas, which is one of the home-foreclosure capitals of the United States, these answers resonate.