NH Dem debate: Afterwards
It seems like you could make a case for any of the top three winning this debate tonight.
On the theory that frontrunners win if they don't screw up, Obama did fine. He handled national security questions fine, he seemed confident when attacked, thoughtful overall. Defending, rather than attacking, he seemed a little passive and a little less forceful than the other two, but not in a particularly damaging way.
Hillary was hurt badly when Edwards sided with Obama and called her an "agent of the status quo." It took the wind out of her sails for awhile, but she came back by insisting on a "reality check," insisting that she's the realist compared to the pretty talkers. Edwards showed flair and passion and is probably right about the need to go to war with corporate interests -- but his populism just doesn't seem likely to get a majority this cycle.
First Read says Edwards delivered a "body blow" to Hillary, and went with the Obama frontrunner analysis: "Obama seemed to pass his test with flying colors. He got to look in command..., he defended himself against Clinton by lecturing her tone and then got to look like the "normal" one by letting the moderator know who won the 'Skins game."
Josh Marshall at TPM thought the critical exchange was indecisive. Obama was "solid" and Hillary was "impassioned" in answering Edwards' status-quo slap. He saw, sharply, Hillary's "anger at being in this position." At having lost control of the race? At being cast as an agent of the status quo after a lifetime of progressive politics? Probably both.
Tapped found no game changers. Hillary "defended her record creditably" while "failing to draw any real blood from Obama," and Obama "defended the power of words" and presented "mini versions of his invitations to the dance of changing history."
WP's Cillizza at The Fix led with Hillary moving to the attack for the first time (it's what underdogs do!) but said it "may be too little too late," and speculated about Edwards' strategy: "Edwards has decided that his best chance to be one of the last two candidates standing is to knock her out in New Hampshire. Edwards' campaign believes that if he can do that -- perhaps with a close third place finish -- Clinton will be a non-factor and allow him to debate Obama over which man is the true change agent."
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (2)
You write that Edwards "is probably right about the need to go to war with corporate interests." Do you have any support for this position whatsoever, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
I thought I was pulling it out of my brain.
1. Hillary's partisan-work-hard approach and Obama's transcend-partisanship approach have been tried, off and on, for a long time. We are where we are.
2. If you believe, at these three claim they do, that some more profound change is necessary, you probably need to do something new. Edwards' aggressive anti-corporate populism would be a new thing in the WH.
3.Corporate interests are obviously extremely powerful in Washington. They define the parameters of change. It stands to reason that you need to go to war with those interests to go outside existing parameters.