January 07, 2008
1/7: One Weekend, Three Debates
Liberal bloggers believe that all of the Dem candidates gave solid performances at Saturday night's ABC News/WMUR/Facebook debate. The consensus seems to be that John Edwards gave the strongest performance but that Barack Obama was the "winner" simply because he didn't allow Hillary Clinton to draw much blood. Meanwhile, a number of prominent liberal bloggers are predicting a long primary fight even if Obama wins NH, since HRC could very well be ahead in delegates after Feb. 5th.
This weekend's two GOP debates prompted a great deal of discussion in the conservative blogosphere. While the usual suspects argued that Mitt Romney won Saturday night's ABC News/WMUR/Facebook debate, most bloggers felt that Romney had a difficult time defending himself against the incoming fire from Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and (especially) John McCain. However, many bloggers also felt that McCain came across as mean-spirited in his attacks on Romney and that he was wise to soften his tone during Sunday night's Fox News debate. Furthermore, many bloggers are praising Romney for his performance on Sunday night and suggesting that it may have saved his campaign.
Last Friday we suggested that "Romney's defeat [in Iowa] makes McCain the new consensus candidate for fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks, who are unlikely to support Huckabee." However, it should be noted that many conservative bloggers have deep-seated problems with McCain that won't be resolved overnight. While McCain may not be as radioactive in the conservative blogosphere as Huckabee, he is still unacceptable to a considerable number of bloggers, as the following statement from Townhall's Hugh Hewitt demonstrates:
"John McCain's crippled presidential candidacy is attempting a comeback in New Hampshire, a comeback built on amnesia -- the hope that GOP voters won't recall the Virginia Beach explosion against evangelicals in 2000, the votes against President [George W.] Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the McCain-Feingold assault on free speech, the Gang of 14 undoing of the mandate to end judicial filibusters delivered by the Senate elections of 2004, and most especially the two attempts co-authored by Senator McCain and Senator [Ted] Kennedy to overhaul the immigration laws of the United States and extend to the 12 to 20 million illegals living in the U.S. the opportunity to stay here forever."
DEBATE OBAMA: Unscathed?
TPM's Josh Marshall: "In general, I think Obama's the winner tonight. I think Hillary made her case well. I think Edwards had the best debate. But the debate can only be understood in the context of the moment. Right now, Obama's on fire. The first post-Iowa polls show him picking up a big post-caucus bump. He needed to come off well. Not make any mistakes. And not let Hillary open up any strong line of attack against him. And I think he did each one of those things."
The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The usual pattern of these things, in my view, is that John Edwards has done the best, and Hillary Clinton has done what she needed to do to consolidate her position as front-runner...The difference, though, is that Hillary Clinton's not the front-runner anymore in the kind of way she used to be. She wanted to use tonight to cut her opponents down to size, but while she had good answers to questions she didn't have any devastating attacks. Edwards will have done himself a lot of good if a lot of New Hampshirites stayed in tonight and watched, but presumably the press will just move back to ignoring him. Obama, now, seems to me to be the guy who did what he needed to do delivering a competent performance and not letting his main rival draw any meaningful blood."
Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Obama didn't have a great performance, but neither was it a bad performance. But it was at least adequate, and that's all he needed."
DEBATE CLINTON: No Direct Hits?
Josh Marshall: "I don't think [Clinton] really laid a glove on [Obama]."
DHinMI: "Clinton's inevitability gambit has failed, and it's unclear whether she has a viable Plan B. She showed tonight she couldn't effectively knock Obama off his game, especially by relying on the experience vs change motif, and it probably will hurt her a bit to be seen as attacking and being negative. The fact is, people want change, and there's really nothing she can do to present herself as a greater representative or symbol of change than either Barack Obama or John Edwards."
DEBATE EDWARDS: Bringin' The Heat
Josh Marshall: "John Edwards also had, I thought, a very strong debate, particularly in the latter half of the debate. He talks a lot about feeling this fight in his blood and being a fighter. And it's important when you say things like that that it really resonates in what you say, how you act, who you seem to be. And I think it did on every count. Unfortunately for Hillary, most of the eloquence and fire was directed at her tonight."
DHinMI: "Edwards probably had the best performance of the night. He came across as passionate, and was more energetic than the other candidates. With the debate closing on economic issues, he was able to play his populist card to great effect and dominate the closing minutes of the debate."
OBAMA: Changing The Game?
Are the netroots starting to come around to Obama? Daily Kos' DemFromCT sounds like he is: "I like my Democrats a bit more hard-edged [than Obama], at least at this moment in time. I never got over the stolen election of 2000 and I don't think I ever will. I was hoping for someone, as a candidate, who conveyed that they understood why that matters. It's about understanding that the other side is screwing you (and the Rule of Law, and therefore the country) as a matter of policy...But I do have an observation about the Obama campaign. I love it. I like the idea of inclusion, of forward looking solutions, and the day when the former Bush administration can be looked back on with the perspective it deserves. And I love, absolutely love, the 2:1 turnout in Iowa, and the 3:2 turnout currently projected for indies from NH voting in the Dem primary over the Republican one. Win or lose, Obama is running the kind of campaign that will be transformative."
Ex-Sen. Gary Hart is excited by Obama's success: "Already the Obama candidacy has sent a powerful message around a watching world: The torch has been passed to a new generation of American leaders, and we don't care what color it is. As one who has struggled throughout a lifetime for restoration of idealism to American politics, I can only smile, and perhaps shed a tear of happiness, that our time may have come. This is a new day in America. Let's call it hope."
CLINTON: Don't Count Her Out Yet
MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks HRC is still very much in the race, even if she loses NH, Nevada, and SC: "[Clinton will] still come out on top in MI & FL, and lead in delegates going into Feb 5th, where it's Democrats, not Independents, that will decide the nomination."
Open Left's Chris Bowers agrees: "For a long time, I have argued that Obama is poised to sweep to the nomination in the event that he sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire. However, now I am not so sure. In a development that has flown under the radar, it now seems to me that, as long as Clinton wins Florida and California, she will be ahead in delegates after February 5th no matter what happens in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada...If Clinton is able to win Florida on January 29th and California on February 5th, it is very hard to see how she falls too far behind in the delegate count. In fact, if her Super Delegates are combined with victories in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York, it is hard to see how she falls behind in the delegate count at all."
TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "New Hampshire voters, like Iowans, are not representative of the nation. Neither are South Carolinans. Super Duper Tuesday will count more. I don't think New York or California or Florida voters will give a whit what happened in those three states. What's left is momentum and media exposure. I think many of them will be determined to prevent those tiny states from diminishing the chance for their vote to be of equal impact and will ignore the hype."
Meanwhile, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher suggests how HRC can regain her mojo: "Clinton needs to do something dramatic. She needs to give people a reason to believe in her, show that she's not just an overly scripted politician who will never do anything that's isn't 'safe.' An excellent way to do that would be to leave the campaign trail and go back to Washington with Chris Dodd to filibuster retroactive immunity for the telecoms...She'd certainly grab all the media attention by doing so, and force Obama to either follow her lead or stay behind on the campaign trail while she goes to Washington and fights for the constitution -- neither of which have good optics. It would be decidedly un-[Mark] Penn like, unsafe and virtually impossible to poll. But it might be just the kind of shaking up that her campaign -- and the race as a whole -- would benefit from."
Open Left's Matt Stoller likes Hamsher's idea: "It's a really interesting idea, and would certainly build credibility for Clinton on the leadership front. Obama's (and Edwards's) weakness, heretofore unexploited, is that, though he's running on a message of change, he's never actually led on any substantive change...The FISA fight is Bush's top priority this year, and bringing some partisan heat to a national security issue might help reposition her as the candidate able and willing to make real change instead of just inspiring people with vague rhetoric."
CLINTON II: Getting An Unfair Shake?
Several liberal bloggers feel that the media is biased against HRC:
Jeralyn Merritt: "I'm disgusted and embarrassed by the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton. And their fawning over Barack Obama and his mantra of 'change'...the gender-based slamming of Hillary, both in the media and online, is very disturbing."
The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Am I feeling bitter? You bet. Not because Hillary Clinton seems more likely than not to lose -- I can live with that pretty easily -- but because of how she's likely to lose. Because the press doesn't like her. Because any time a woman raises her voice half a decibel she instantly becomes shrill. Because we insist on an idiotic nominating system that gives a bunch of Iowa corn farmers 20x the influence of any Democratic voter in any urban area in the country. Because the fever swamp, in the end, is getting the last laugh."
Matthew Yglesias links to Drum's post and writes: "As Troy Aikman just said to Joe Buck about an unrelated issue, 'I agree with that to a point.' But consider the alternative -- had Hillary Clinton won because she'd been able to coerce the support of a large number of elected officials, union leaders, donors, and other elites on the basis of the idea that she was inevitable and retribution would be dealt out to those who failed to support her and because we insist on an idiotic nominating system that gives wildly disproportionate influence to lily-white Iowa that would have sucked, too. We have a screwed-up political process in this country, and political outcomes naturally reflect that fact. I agree that Clinton gets a bad rap from many in the press, but at the end of the day there are limits to my sympathy for the ill-treatment she and her husband have received over the years...If she loses, Hillary Clinton will still be a multimillionaire US Senator, so there are people out there who I'll feel sorrier for."
TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat also doesn't see what all the fuss is about: "Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein are bemoaning the pack coverage of Hillary's meltdown. Well, um, I expected it, but I must admit it never materialized. Not sure what Kevin and Ezra are talking about frankly. I thought the coverage was pretty fair. What did I miss?"
DEBATE ROMNEY: Under Siege
Conservative bloggers agreed that Romney was under attack for much of Saturday night's ABC News debate, but they disagreed as to how well the ex-governor defended himself against those attacks:
AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "The most noteworthy aspect of the GOP debate was the near evisceration of Mitt Romney. It is no easy task to lose an immigration debate to John McCain but he managed to do so."
Soren Dayton: "The test of a debate is what is fixated in people's heads. Those moments will be, almost certainly, the attacks on Mitt Romney...Romney cratered."
RedState's Erick Erickson: "It was impossible for Romney to win, when everyone else on stage was pummeling him. He got the crap beat out of him tonight -- ironically, I think some voters will feel sympathy for him as a result."
NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Romney never quite got completely thrown off, but...he doesn't defend himself well enough. He whines about personal attacks, or says candidates shouldn't talk about others' views, which is pretty nonsensical. If you went into tonight hearing he was a flip-flopper, you heard several other candidates say it tonight, and you saw Romney say it was a personal attack...and then move on to policy points. Whoever's left undecided might conclude, based on the lack of effective refutation, that the charge is accurate."
Power Line's John Hinderaker had a different take: "I thought Romney was the clear winner, most of all in demeanor and general impact. I've been critical of Mitt's television communication skills in the past, but last night he was Presidential and effective. A viewer who knew nothing about the status of the race would have assumed, I think, that Romney was the front-runner and perhaps the candidate with the most stature. Headlines suggest that the other candidates were ganging up on Romney. I think that is overblown; it happened on only a couple of occasions. On those occasions, I thought Romney came across as the candidate who is trying to rise above pettiness and focus on policy. McCain's anger toward Romney backfired, I thought. On a number of issues -- health care and energy, and even national defense -- Romney showed impressive command."
Unsurprisingly, Hugh Hewitt also thinks Romney won the debate: "The key is that Romney didn't lose a single supporter and may have picked up many who watched him handle the barrage while displaying a command of the immigration and health care issues while looking presidential throughout."
Most bloggers felt that Romney did much better in Sunday night's Fox News debate:
Soren Dayton: "Romney did much better than last night."
NRO's Rich Lowry: "[Romney's] best performance yet, in very high pressure circumstances. His answers on taxes, job creation, and immigration were top notch. My quibbles: he still is going to have to have a convincing gut-level response to the insincerity/flip-flop charges at some point; he should ditch the (attempted) hair joke; and he can seem over-eager at times. But if he somehow wins NH, tonight will be a big reason why."
Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Mitt Romney, in my view, was the winner. His answers were crisp, knowledgeable, and poised. He was solid on each substantive issue and effective in defending his so-called attack ads. My guess is that he's cemented himself as the choice of Republicans in New Hampshire, but still faces the prospect of having independents override that choice."
Hugh Hewitt: "Romney had the best of all of his debate showings...[He] display[ed] not only a first class temperament but also a first class intellect."
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "[Romney] was a stronger, more real version of Mitt tonight. I truly enjoyed it, and I haven't thought he's won a debate since the very first Republican debate. I think he probably did himself a lot of good in New Hampshire tonight, and the [Frank] Luntz focus group shows it. This is the first time I've thought, maybe ever, that there's a glimmer of hope for Romney in a general."
DEBATE MCCAIN: Bringing A Gun To A Knife Fight?
Several conservative bloggers think that McCain went a bit overboard in his attacks on Romney during the ABC News debate:
RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "McCain looked peevish and cranky when he repeatedly and gleefully sought to put the boot into Romney time after time after time."
John Hinderaker: "McCain did all right, but I don't think he helped himself with his jabs at Romney. At one point he delivered a planned one-liner, agreeing that Romney is the 'candidate of change.' I thought it was extremely lame; at first, no one but McCain laughed. Romney came off looking, I thought, like the grown-up, something that shouldn't happen to McCain."
Rich Lowry: "I think he won as a political matter and now would be surprised if he doesn't win handily in New Hampshire. But he was nasty toward Romney, letting his hatred -- and I used that word advisedly -- show. Of course, he tried to cover it with an occasional forced grin, but it was clear where he was coming from. I find this aspect of McCain's character very unattractive, and it's not a great quality to have in a president."
RedState's Adam C: "McCain's barbs at Romney got a bit excessive, but it won't likely lose him any current supporters. With immigration and global warming as topics, McCain reminded conservatives of some sore spots. But NH Republicans are not Alabama Republicans. I don't see McCain losing any support after this performance and it's possible his appeal to Independents was helped a little."
Soren Dayton thinks McCain won the first debate: "John McCain just needed to tread water. Not only did he do that, but he looked dignified except for, perhaps, going a little too far on poking Romney once."
Stephen F. Hayes agrees: "[McCain] was funny, spirited and seemed well-informed. Even in the squabbles in the group he seemed like the adult in the room."
Bloggers noted that McCain softened his tone during the Fox News debate:
Rich Lowry: "He toned down his scorn for Romney, which was smart...He closed strongly with a direct appeal to New Hampshire. Overall: confident and sure-footed."
Mary Katharine Ham: "He softened tone tonight, probably helping himself with those who thought he was a tad nasty last night. I didn't love any moments for him, and the fact that nothing's standing out makes me think he's was just okay and didn't hurt himself."
Jim Geraghty: "Tonight he was a bit more laid back...he looked like a man who knows he's going to do well Tuesday, and thus he's going to enjoy it."
DEBATE HUCKABEE: Off His Game
Conservative bloggers were not particularly impressed by Huckabee's performance at the ABC News debate:
Michelle Malkin: "Huckabee was nervous. In past debates, he performed the best -- injecting humor, memorable one-liners, etc. Tonight, he was rehearsed and careful and brittle."
John Hinderaker: "Huckabee tried to position himself more in the party's mainstream, but in doing so, I thought he lost some of his uniqueness as a candidate. Also, whereas in some appearances Huckabee has seemed quite a bit more articulate and likable than most of his rivals, last night the others were up to his standard...I don't think he gained any ground last night."
Jim Geraghty: "I think there will be a familiar split in reaction to his performance. Pundits, and folks who know these issues backwards and forwards, will find his answers glib, lightweight, paper-thin. Voters will like it. I don't know how much of a splash he'll make in New Hampshire, as he's an odd fit for the state, but everybody else in this field ought to be going to Red Alert, because this guy is going to play the Pied Piper, and a lot of folks are going to line up behind him."
Nor were conservative bloggers impressed by Huckabee's performance at the Fox News debate:
Mary Katharine Ham: "He's always slippery, but he looked slippery tonight. He stammered on his first answer, which didn't set a good precedent for him. After I wrote my first-half summary, I noticed he stumbled a few more times, not much, but enough to be noticeable. He did fine, but he's usually better."
Rich Lowry: "[Huckabee is] always a good talker, but felt a little whiny in his confrontations with Romney and was very evasive at times."
DEBATE THOMPSON: Good, But Good Enough?
Most conservative bloggers thought Thompson gave a solid performance in the ABC News debate:
John Hinderaker: "Fred did fine; I liked, for example, his refusal to demonize the oil companies. But I doubt that his low-key style and relatively brief contributions did anything to change his status as a second-tier candidate."
Soren Dayton: "Fred Thompson ended up sounding like the conservative voice on the stage. If McCain wins on Tuesday, conservatives are going to need some place to go. Fred will compete for that. His goal tonight was to be that voice. He accomplished."
Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "Fred Thompson's performance in the debate was a microcosm of his performance in the campaign: When he participated, he did well. He articulated conservative positions in a way that should help him. He was, as usual, strongest on national security. But he probably didn't speak up enough to get rank-and-file conservatives to volunteer for his campaign or, perhaps more importantly, to open their checkbooks."
RedState's Mark I: "If only Fred Thompson had as much energy as he has gravitas. He needed to be a bit more aggressive."
Conservative bloggers also thought Thompson did well in the Fox News debate:
Mary Katharine Ham: "I thought [Thompson] was knowledgeable and made the others look less mature with the depth of his answers. I think he's got a more comfortable style that works for him in debates and ought to serve him well in South Carolina, where voters are more predisposed to the rambly country-boy style."
Hugh Hewitt: "Thompson is emerging as the new Dick Cheney -- not likely to run a winning campaign for the presidency, but a very compelling potential vice president for the reasons that Cheney helped the ticket in 2000."
DEBATE GIULIANI: Vanishing Act
Conservative bloggers thought that while Rudy Giuliani gave a decent performance in the ABC News debate, he didn't stand out enough:
Stephen F. Hayes: "Rudy Giuliani performed adequately, but he did little to help him stand out at a time when he is desperate for news coverage."
Jim Geraghty: "A solid night, but not a lot of moments to shine."
John Hinderaker: "It was good to see Rudy in action again. Because he opted to pretty much punt on both Iowa and New Hampshire, he has been nearly invisible in recent weeks. He gave a very strong performance last night, reminding us why he might still be the front-runner for the nomination. His weaknesses -- the social issues and personal baggage -- didn't come up. So it was a very good night for Giuliani."
Conservative bloggers also thought that Giuliani disappeared during the Fox News debate:
Mary Katharine Ham: "[Giuliani] was sort of a non-entity. He really needs to be speaking up more often to keep the spotlight on himself, and his answers are sounding canned these days. He's really going to have to buck up to make it work on Super Duper."
Erick Erickson: "Loser: Rudy Giuliani. He was sidelined too much tonight -- more so even than Fred Thompson."
Rich Lowry: "He seems very marginal at the moment. The political world has changed from six months ago, but it feels as though he doesn't quite realize it, or know how to adjust to it."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not So Fast, Pundits
The Atlantic's Ross Douthat isn't ready to crown McCain as the GOP frontrunner:
"I still expect McCain to win New Hampshire; I can't imagine that four days of campaigning, even with two debates crammed in, will be enough time for Romney to shift the polls back into his favor. But I think McCain had an opportunity, with Romney hurt by Iowa, Huckabee hurt by being Huckabee, and Thompson and Rudy seemingly out of the running, to seize the mantle of GOP frontrunner this week, and consign Romney's campaign to near-oblivion. After watching the debates, which highlighted McCain's weaknesses as a candidate for the Republican nomination rather than his strengths, I don't think that's going to happen. Even if McCain takes New Hampshire, I don't think this race will be any less wide-open going into Michigan and South Carolina than it is today."
LEST WE FORGET: The U2 Factor
NPR's Carrie Brownstein wonders why U2 is such a popular choice when it comes to political campaign music:
"When Barack Obama took the stage in DeMoines to deliver his impassioned Iowa caucus victory speech, U2's song 'City of Blinding Lights' preceded him. On the same night, John Edwards' address to his supporters was also paired with a U2 song, 'In The Name of Love?' Since when has U2 become the band to sum up American sentiment? Or is it just that they are one of the biggest band in the world and summing up the zeitgeist is part of their job? I guess with Led Zeppelin's 'Lemon Song' not exactly getting the right message across and Rush a little tricky to dance to, U2 is the only monolithic band to embody that perfect blend of informed yet cool."
Matthew Yglesias adds:
"I'll say this, when I went to check out a Barack Obama rally in Washington Square Park by far the worst element was this painfully lame indie rock act they got to keep the crowd warm as people filtered in. In short, you could do worse than U2 (Celine Dion, for example). Still, in light of this country's rich heritage of African-American music, it's a bit sad to see Obama feeling the need to whiten things up like this."
Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 7, 2008 01:09 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
