Rob's Politics Blog

The Dems Debate . . . Again

Thursday's debate was in some ways more satisfying than the others I've seen. The combined ABC and FOX News anchors asked some incisive questions that went beyond the inane horse race-type questions that are often asked. Debate between the candidates was somewhat stifled though. As before, I'll run through my reactions on all of them.

Kerry was in good form and made real efforts to assail the administration but also to defend his position on the war. He managed to show outrage without wallowing in it, which is a good quality to have. I doubt that he lost any support because of this debate, it will probably help him.

Dean did what he could to recover from his bizarre Iowa meltdown. He was calm and steady, but in the end I think he can't really run from the angry Dean we've known from before. When called upon to stand by his remark calling into question the "judgment and ability to sort out complicated issues" of senators who voted for the war, he didn't waver from it. We got to see the old Dean once again at that point. Lieberman asked to cross him and was fairly effective.

Lieberman might be the most endangered candidate at this strech, but was in good form with his usual humor. In his own way, he's been pretty fearless on this campaign. There may be some benefit to him from his debate performance, but it's unlikely to change his fortunes. Regrettably, he was a bit too eager to please on questions about the future of the New Hampshire primary. Playing to the hometown crowd on a question like that is certainly rational, but the primary system broke a long time ago and continually going back to rural states without significant cities or minority populations skews the crucial early season.

Edwards faced some very direct questions from Britt Hume who seemed to see his role as the bad cop among the moderators. I could muse about his taking orders from Roger Ailes, but that would hardly take us anywhere. His strongest moment probably came early when he faced a tough question about his vote against the $87 billion dollar package and his defense of it was solid. Over the whole debate - perhaps because of the questions he faced - he was pretty emphatic and had little opportunity to wax optimistic. Still, that may help convince voters that there's more to him than some gooey Kucinich utopianism.

Dennis Kucinich - once again I'll say it: he makes me want to create a Gong Show format debate.

Al Sharpton was at home again in his role as onstage comic but was utterly flat-footed when asked who he'd appoint to head the Fed.

and finally, Wesley Clark. Clark was in good form some of the time, but made an exceptionally lame defense of three remarks that he'd made or witnessed - his saying that there would be no 9/11s on his watch, his enthusiastic praise of the completion of the Iraq war in March 2003, and Michael Moore's calling Bush a deserter. He's certainly calm and competent onstage, but like Dean he has a problem of letting his mouth run.

Bottom line: New Hampshire is probably Kerry's. Dean will have to spin a 2nd or 3rd place finish to argue that he is still competitive. Edwards may advance somewhat, but as everyone says, he can't afford to lose in South Carolina so this isn't a top priority for him. If he takes 20% in NH, he'll have done pretty well. I don't think Clark's slide is going to be arrested by the debate. Lieberman may reap a slight dividend, but this just isn't his year. I look forward to seeing just how far I'm off when Tuesday's vote happens.

# posted by Rob @ 7:41 AM