• The positioning is interesting -- Edwards and Obama on the left; Richardson and Clinton on the right.
• I like this format; it seems less like professional wrestling than previous debates, and it's actually a debate among the participants rather than a game of gotcha. Charlie Gibson seems to realize that he's not the show, unlike the NBC crowd.
• Obama phumphers a bit when speaking off the cuff. As good an orator as he is, there are a lot of "uh"s and "er"s and "um"s when he has to answer a question on the fly. He needs to work on this; it makes him seem indecisive. He's losing his voice, too. Four words of advice for him: Halls Ice-Blue Peppermint.
• If Hillary were a man, Richardson would have been fellating her on stage. He's so clearly angling for a job in her administration; it's almost pathetic to watch.
• Edwards takes a lot of notes. His courtroom experience shows. He's terrific off the cuff. For people who aren't paying a lot of attention, though, he does look kind of slight and too pretty next to Obama, who -- dare I say it? -- looks like a president. In a courtroom this no doubt makes Edwards seem unthreatening to a jury, but I worry that it makes him seem as if he lacks gravitas. His answers, though, are clear and concise, and clearly the best of the bunch.
• Sorry, folks, but when Hillary gets heated, she does sound shrill. I think if she got some vocal training she could learn to raise her voice without getting that shrillness. This is a problem that many women are going to have because of women's voices being higher. But when she raises her voice, there's a tension there that I think vocal training could address...assuming it's not too late. She went nuts for a moment here (about 1:35 in). (Update: Tom Schaller says about this that the Clinton era just ended.)
• Why is everyone afraid to use the name "George W. Bush"? Why always refer to him as "this president"?
• Kudos to Richardson and Obama for cutting off Gibson's parroting of Bush talking abouts about the so-called "surge." What I wish one of them would have said is that if the reduction in violence is due solely to the surge, are we prepared to spend $15 billion a month in perpetuity to keep the level of violence down. Props to Edwards for noting that where the British withdrew, the level of violence decreased.
• Hillary relaxes for a moment and shows a flash of the charm that people who've met her say she has. Why don't we see that more often?
• Obama responds to a question about "what Republicans will say" by saying that we know the Republican playbook. How will he reconcile his stated goal of ending "divisive politics" while fighting back against the inevitable smears?
• Note to Bill Richardson: Stop pounding. It's coming through on the microphone.
• Edwards is ferociously on message. The main points of his stump speech are all here; about where he comes from and for whom he fights.
• Is it just me, or does this guy from WMUR sound like Mo Rocca?
• Edwards likes to break in when Hillary is going nuts. The juxtaposition of his honeyed voice after Hillary's throat starts tightening up is really effective.
• Richardson: "Emboldering the electorate"? Sorry, we don't need anyone else butchering the English language, thank you very much.
• Edwards distills his entire message in one statement: "You cannot nice these people to death. It doesn't work. I have been in the trenches fighting them for my whole adult life. And it takes strength, backbone, fight, and you have to have to take them on. Yes, Barack, I agree with you completely. We need to unite America. And we need to galvanize the American people . And Bill, I completely agree with what you just said. But this is not a fight with politicians. And this is certainly not a fight with the American people. This is a fight for the American people against those people who are fighting the change."
• Gibson plays the class warfare card on lifting the Bush tax cuts. Edwards goes on message pointing out how the tax cuts have hurt working Americans. For those of us who listen to his every word, Edwards may seem repetitive. But who's as nutty as we are? So for people who are not political junkies, his message is consistent.

Overall: It's really worth your time to sit through this if you missed it. When you compare the one "gotcha" question, which was fairly mild ("Which debate answer in the many debates you've had would you like to take back?") to the kind of crap that Tim Russert dished out, about the Bible and the Red Sox, this was a debate about serious issues in which candidates got to answer serious questions asked by a TV journalist who at least for the moment took his responsibilities seriously (other than his insistence on parroting the Bush talking point about the so-called "surge" in Iraq), taking as much time as needed.

Overall, however, I'm not sure that we saw anything significantly different here than we've seen before. Hillary is still twisting in the wind, trying to figure out a message (change vs. experience) that'll work for her, and her raised-voice problem is something her people should address. Bill Richardson is a smart guy, but he's hard to take seriously because he seems to be angling more for a cabinet position with Hillary than for the nomination. Obama got stronger as the debate went on, with some of that initial hesitancy lessening with each question. And the fact that the questioner was in the direction of the cameras meant he couldn't repeat the mistake he's tended to make when the questioner is off to the side, of answering to the questioner instead of the cameras. I hate to get all Chris Matthews on you here, but the man looks like a president. As for Edwards, well, if you want to talk purely about message, the man is unparalleled. He's got his points, and he's going to sink or swim on that message. He's clearly trying to knock Hillary out and position this as an Obama/Edwards race. I'd almost hate to see that, because I don't see any way Edwards wins that battle. The symbolismof a white Southern male going against a black male, just reopens the wound that Obama's nomination would help close once and for all. I think a ticket with Edwards on top and Obama in the #2 spot could pave the way for a Democratic White House for the next sixteen years. If the ticket were reversed (and I think that's a distinct possibility, with Edwards being the bad cop to Obama's good cop), I don't know that it's as strong.

What is clear, and purists could say it's not fair for me to say this because I had to turn off the Republican debate after watching a bunch of rich white cancer survivors evaluate the nation's health care system based on the fact that they all have great insurance that pays for anything, is that Obama and Edwards so far outshine ANY of the Republicans. Even Hillary at least sounds like she has a brain in her head, unlike the bunch of dumbfucks on the other side of the aisle, who have no idea what to run on other than fear and Jesus. When you think about how not so long ago it seemed as if the Republicans would run things forever (and they still might; remember, they can still rig an election like nobody's business), that these six guys are the best they could come up with shows what happens when you really start believing that you can create your own reality.

Labels: 2008 election