I'll get the declaration of winners out of the way first: the Democratic voters won tonight.
All four of our candidates were very strong. They all came across as likable. They are extremely sharp, incredibly well-informed and thoughtful. They have visions for how and where they would lead the country, and the role of America in the world. They want to challenge the American people by appealing to the sense of the common good. They didn't attack government and demean its potential for positive change. They showed that they can all inspire Americans to strive for a better future for all of us. There couldn't be a more stark contrast between our tremendous field and the horrible Republican field than the back-to-back debates that just aired on ABC.
Our candidates also conducted themselves like responsible adults. They showed respect to each other, and in doing so showed greater respect for the viewers and the voters. Unlike the Republicans, who were mean and nasty to each other, the Democrats were almost unfailingly calm, they didn't take nasty tones with each other, they complimented each other, and they didn't interrupt. There was only one moment of significant crosstalk, when all four were trying to interrupt, but they were trying to interrupt ABC's host Charles Gibson, to reject the premise of one of his questions. (More on Gibson in a moment.)
They also showed they could be light and funny. When told of local polls that showed Obama more likeable than Clinton, she joked that "that hurts my feelings...But I'll try to go on." She was very warm and funny; it was one of the rare flashes of Hillary Clinton's humor that we often hear about but that seldom comes through in public. Obama not only said he watched football instead of the Republican debate, when Gibson shot back a question, Obama said the Redskins had lost, showing that in fact he did know what happened. And given a chance to repent for a faux pas in a previous debate, Edwards graciously apologized for one having mocked Clinton's jacket, and he complimented her on looking very nice tonight.
Most of the attacks, such as they were, came from Hillary Clinton. Some will claim that means something about her, but what it was really about was her need to knock down Obama. He has huge momentum from his big win in Iowa, and Clinton needed to pull him down. She clearly and repeatedly drew a contrast between her "35 years of working" on behalf of various issues vs those candidates lacking that kind of experience. Obama (and to a lesser extent Edwards) are the symbols of change. Clinton presented herself as the proven agent of change.
This conflict—change vs experience—was the main fault line of the debate. On the change team was Obama and Edwards, with Clinton and Richardson on the experience team. This contrast led to the the hottest exchanges, with Clinton on the offensive, with claims of her accomplishments, and Richardson's resume covering her flank. On the other side you had Obama acknowledging the accomplishments of Bill Clinton, but arguing that words and inspiration do matter, and that experience is not enough. Edwards and his populism covered Obama's flank (and much more effectively than Richardson helped Clinton and her emphasis on experience).
The key moment tonight was probably when Edwards, responding to Clinton's attack on Obama, declared that Clinton didn't attack anyone when she was leading, and now she's attacking when her campaign isn't doing well. MissLaura was in the press room, and by email she said that moment didn't elicit the gasps generated by some of the hits delivered on Mitt Romney during the Republican debate, but it still created a buzz, and was the "big story" on ABC's post-script.
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.
Richardson was mostly along for the ride. He didn't do much to help himself. I also found his snarky comment about having been in cease fire talks (or something like that) that weren't as nasty as smug, histrionic and a cheap shot. A guy who only got 2% in Iowa isn't really in a position to take shots at the people fighting for the win.
Clinton didn't commit any serious substantive gaffes—in fact, though they are obviously fatigued, none of them committed any serious gaffes—she didn't do what she needed to do, which was to force Obama to commit a gaffe. She didn't really have any option other than to attack Obama. She wasn't over the top, but in a Democratic primary, those attacks come with costs to the attacker. And she wasn't able to mitigate those costs with greater gains in the form of hits sustained by Obama.
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. Right now, he has major momentum. 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.
The loser in this debate was Charles Gibson. When he tried to attack Clinton for her tax plan that claimed would raise taxes on a mythical married couple who were college professors each making over $100,000 per year—uh, yeah, right Charlie—the candidates pretty much laughed at him, and the crowd laughed with them; Edwards chuckled at Gibson and observed of the crowd "I don't think they agree with you." It was a classic moment of the traditional media celebrities demonstrating how out of touch they are with the real lives of Americans, only a small percentage of whom make over $200,000 per year per household, especially if they live outside high cost areas like NYC, Boston, DC or the Bay Area.
What I found heartening about that exchange, though, is that the four Democrats jumped all over Gibson, rejecting the premise of his question. They didn't do it as often as they should have, but I sense some progress by some of the Democrats in rejecting the bullshit premises of some of what comes out of the mouths of the Beltway Bloviators. The only time they were all talking at the same time was to dispute Gibson's premise that they wouldn't be able to effect change in Washington. And right out of the gate, Gibson tried to get them to admit they were wrong about the surge, that it's great, yada yada yada. As DemFromCT recently explained, the American voters have made up their mind on the Iraq war, and the drop in American casualties; it hasn't changed their mind that the war is a blunder, there hasn't been political progress, and we need to draw our troops out of Iraq. Gibson and the rest of the parrots in the press should recognize that as policy, the surge hasn't facilitated the political reconciliation it was touted to deliver, and it hasn't changed the opinions of the American public.
Tonight, within the Democratic debate, the outcome was status quo. Clinton and Edwards needed Obama to falter or get knocked down a peg or two, and it doesn't appear to have happened. Clinton played the only move she has left, to be aggressive in going after Obama, because it's clear now that Edwards won't be the hatchet man to the Senator from Illinois, at least not as long as Clinton is still in the field.
In the contrast between, the two debates, it was anything but status quo. The Republicans presented a bunch of bickering, mean-spirited and short-sighted candidates, only one of whom faced hard realities (but offered isolationism and a return to the gold standard as the panaceas), and only one of whom came across as warm and optimistic (and he distrusts science and thinks God talks directly to him, which we've already seen in the last 8 years doesn't turn out that well). We have candidates who, while not perfect, understand the challenges facing the country and the world, and have visions for meeting those challenges and embracing the possibilities of the future.
Tonight the Republican party lost. The winners were the Democratic party and the voters of America.