Tonights Debate Stategery!

So the debate is tonight and I, for one, can’t wait.  Not only is it in my beloved Austin, but it will be a crucial moment in the campaign.  If Hillary has any chance of turning this thing around (and she isn’t out of it yet, never underestimate a Clinton) she has to move quickly.

So, what strategy will she use?  Will she go on the attack and if so what will she attack Obama on?  Will she play the elder stateswoman, wise to the world, and attempt to make Obama look naïve?  Will it be a kind and fuzzy debate or a slugfest?

I don’t know how I’d play it if I were Hillary.  If she is too harsh she could hurt herself and appear mean spirited, turning voters off.  On the other hand, if she is too nice what does she gain?  The last thing, in my opinion, that Hillary wants is the campaign to turn into a personality contest.

As it turns out the New York Times has an article out today about the differing opinions within the Clinton campaign about this issue.

Here is the link, and by the way the entire article is worth reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/...

According to the article Mark Penn has been urging Hillary to:

Draw sharper and deeper contrasts with Mr. Obama, arguing that she has no other option.

I tend to think that Hillary should do the exact opposite of whatever Mark Penn says.  Others in the Clinton campaign seem to agree with me:

Mandy Grunwald, her media adviser, have pushed for a less aggressive approach, arguing that attacks would not help Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in an environment in which she is increasingly appearing to struggle, aides said.

So now that Hillary has the debate she has been so wanting, what does she do with it?  Which Hillary will come out tonight?

More interesting, to me at least, is what is Obama’s strategy?  He doesn’t need to win the debate; he just needs not to be steamrolled.  Does he try for a K.O.?  Are we finally going to see Obama’s, "There she goes again," moment?

One way or another I’m glued to the TV tonight!

•  Tips?

  by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:57:54 AM PDT

  •  OK, I'm guilty of not reading this...

    cuz I wanted to ask if the title was misspelled on purpose?

    by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:17:42 AM PDT

    •  Yes, it was a take

      on SNL's 2000 Bush campaign.

      by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:31:50 AM PDT

      •  Ah, ok

        (speaking of 2000 and SNL -- one of my all time favorite skits si "Palm Beach" which was a soap opera send up of the Florida recount.  Val Kilmer was hosting)

        by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:42:02 AM PDT

  •  Obama should start and end every issue with

    Cough, cough, NAFT!, cough.

    by Fools on the Hill on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:28:42 AM PDT

    •  LOL

      It would be funny...

      by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:32:13 AM PDT

•  I think Obama should stay positive

  so if Hillary goes negative, it looks bad for her because she's not the one being positive.

  by slinkerwink on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:59:07 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    If Obama takes any swings at all they should be defensive.

    He can't just go after her without reason.  It is one thing to punch back once punched, it is another thing altogether to throw the first blow.

    by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:02:05 AM PDT

  •  Obama's been positive all along. And he will

    continue to do so.

    by darthstar on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:07:29 AM PDT

    •  he wasn't positive in the SC debate

      that was bad for him, but it backfired on Hillary more.

      by slinkerwink on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:16:38 AM PDT

      •  It helped

        Edwards and only Edwards.

        But he can't let her bully him...

        by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:17:40 AM PDT

    •  The only time he really went negative was in the

      SC debate and he didn't look comfortable doing it. My feeling is he's going to take this opportunity to show he has what it takes to be president. If she attacks, he will turn to this line: "Is this the kind of politics America needs right now?"

      by Slatersan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:34:25 AM PDT

•  he should stand on the stage...

  ...and start chanting

  "Ten nil! Ten nil ! Ten nil! Ten nil!" and pump his fists in teh air.

  by Salo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:05:51 AM PDT

  •  uncorking champagne bottles

    and spraying the audience.

    by jalapeno on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:07:59 AM PDT

    •  and then cuck a bucket of ice

      over Mike Ditka's head.

      by Salo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:10:25 AM PDT

      •  DA debatess

        Alright, after da heart attack, I gotta say Ditka 17, Clinton 14. He just barely gets by.

        by ekthesy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:14:48 AM PDT

        •  Sausage.

          Sausage

          by Salo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:22:49 AM PDT

          •  is Bratwurst banned in Chicago?

            The Green Bay delicacy, after all?

            by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:27:19 AM PDT

            •  We're more about the

              maxwell street polish than the brat in Chicago.

              by Slatersan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:35:20 AM PDT

              •  Ah, ok

                Here's to the NFC Central...  This Buc fan sure as hell misses it.

                by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:40:06 AM PDT

      •  Tom Coughlin

        It's not 1985 :p

        by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:26:31 AM PDT

•  after being attacked he should say

  Im rubber, you're glue what you say bounces off of me, and sticks to you.

  by segseg on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:06:08 AM PDT

•  Obama should be EXTREMELY detailed

  No soaring rhetoric.  
  If I wanted to hear soaring rhetoric, I'd listen to John Ashcroft("Let the eagle SOAR.....")

  by jeffwtux on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:06:46 AM PDT

  •  FYI

    Ascroft can also help if you want your feet anointed in canola oil.  Jus sayin.

    by deminva on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

  •  Extremely detailed doesn't play well in debates

    If it was a General Election debate, I'd agree...  but "The Devil is in the details" is true for a reason - if you get bogge ddown explaining the details, you lose the audience.

    by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:29:26 AM PDT

  •  The only soaring rhetoric he's done in debates

    was almost an accident. It was when she threw out the "just words" charge in the 1/5/08 NH debate. She said:

    So you know, words are not actions.
    And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record...

    There's no good way to answer that without sounding soaring. He said:

    Look, I think it's easier to be cynical and just say, "You know what, it can't be done because Washington's designed to resist change."

    But in fact there have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better, and I think we're in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes -- not incremental changes, not small changes.
    I actually give Bill Clinton enormous credit for having balanced those budgets during those years. It did take political courage for him to do that. But we never built the majority and coalesced the American people around being able to get the other stuff done.
    And, you know, so the truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy.

    Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, yes, we can. And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers.

    Well maybe that wasn't too soaring because look at the next line. Bill wasn't inspired

    GOV. RICHARDSON: You know, this is the kind of Washington bickering that the public turns off to. And you know, with all due respect, as a governor...

    But rhetoric in debates has never been his problem. Knowing the information well hasn't been his problem.

    Talking in sound bytes was. When he had 1 minute to answer he wasn't very good, that's not his style. I don't mean as opposed to speeches. But he tends to answer more like a professor than a politician. Like he thinks as he talks rather than just rolling the answer out.

    That bothered some people more than it did me. It's not a style that works well in debates though.

    I don't know if he was better last time because it was just 2 people and there was less time pressure. ut soaring rhetoric has never been an issue in debates.

    by joynow on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:42:57 AM PDT

•  She can start by congratulating Obama on his

  wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii, as well as the Potomac Primary, since she has yet to acknowledge that those races even took place, at least publicly.  Pretending that states don't exist or matter (if you don't win them) doesn't do much for building party confidence.

  by darthstar on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:06:54 AM PDT

  •  Good luck with that n/t

    by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:18:30 AM PDT

•  I think she should come right out at McCain

  instead of Obama.

  Face it.  If she goes hard at him, its over.  He will trap her.  She should start planning on a very successful Senate Majority Leader seat for the next 8 years crafting her and working with Obama in making sure we have a progressive majority forever.

  by jalapeno on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:07:07 AM PDT

  •  That is actually pretty smart

    Attack McCain first and foremost.  It would make her more presidential.

    I don't think she should attack him on the recent scandal though, not enouth is known about it.

    by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:09:09 AM PDT

    •  If she comes out at Obama

      Obama could say, Hillary the enemy of the democratic party is George W. Bush and John W. McCain, not me or any other democrats, please stay focused on the enemy.

      by jalapeno on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:14:19 AM PDT

      •  He won't say that

        because he is trying to bring the country together.  

        He could say something very like that, but not "enemy" because the Goopers would say, "Wait a second, we thought al quada was the enemy..."

        But you are correct that he should point out that they are both members of the same party.

        by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:20:42 AM PDT

      •  Hillary can NOT be the Senate leader

        because she hasn't been a leader in the Senate. Her time to be a heavy hitter in the Senate was during the lead-up to war in Iraq. Had she gone on the floor of the Senate and spoken out against this war she not only would be running away with the nomination right now, she could have convinced several other Dems to go with her in opposing the conflict.

        See, I thought when Hillary became a Senator she was going to be front and center every day. But I rarely hear about anything she is doing in the Senate. I rarely hear about her leading in the Senate.

        My choice is Dodd. We have to rid ourselves of Reid.

        by Slatersan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:38:23 AM PDT

        •  It was smart to not be a "heavy hitter"

          right away, it's good to start out quieter and working harder, not going for the glory.
          But it surprised me that she stayed so background as time went on.

          Still I wonder if losing her bid for nomination will do for her what loosing run for president did for Kerry and Gore. Even Obama's losing run for US Congress has been described as doing the same thing.
          It's like they become freer to be themselves, to take stands, to speak out, to work hard for what matters and not so much work hard to not offend.

          It could make her a better Senator.

          by joynow on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:57:18 AM PDT

  •  I dont thinkg that will happen,...

    since if she were that type of person, she would have already conceded to Obama.

    by Common Raven on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:59:59 AM PDT

•  I hate to say this

  But I actually agree with Mark Penn.  Hillary's way of debating is not, in any event, going to make people connect with her on a personal level, no matter how ``positive'' she is.  Plus, she's so far down, the only real way to win is to take Obama's head off.  

  Obama needs to just appear presidential and not make any big mistakes.  He should also start to frame the race as over.

  by theran on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:07:55 AM PDT

  •  I don't think people really

    connect on a personal level with a candidate going negative, particularly when that candidate is, rightly or wrongly, perceived to be losing at the moment. Going negative is something you usually leave to surrogates just for that reason.

    Going negative herself tonight is a big risk, but at this point the campaign may be calculating that the campaign has nothing to lose.

    I hope not, because there still is the Democratic Party, and there still is Senator Clinton's dignity. Both could suffer damage from tonight's debate if both candidates don't stick to the high road.

    by elmo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:24:26 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      The point of staying positive is to get people to want you to win.  But if you can't do that, there is always just trashing your opponent.  It's risky, but all Hillary really has going for her, since there is already widespread consensus that the race is over.

      by theran on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:27:37 AM PDT

      •  Senator Clinton & Dignity

        Not three words you usually hear in a sentence together.

        by Slatersan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:39:19 AM PDT

•  Obama should be stockpiling the statistics

  he should use at least 3 statitics for every question.  He must blow away the substance gap.  Then in the post debate spin room, Axelrod has to tell people of all the POSTIVE substance Obama brought to the debate.

  by jeffwtux on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:10:20 AM PDT

•  I have faith in Obama

  But I expect her to come at him like a caged animal.  She's got nothing left to lose.

  by prefan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:10:27 AM PDT

  •  Then he already won

    I've never bought that Hillary is a much better debater.  She seems to get more and more worked up the longer she speaks, which doesn't play well on TV.  His more chill style and skill at gracefully brushing off attacks or countering is naturally better.

    Hillary need to find a kind of balanced attack, where she doesn't put the focus on herself as the attacker.  It's not going to happen, I suspect.

    by theran on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:14:11 AM PDT

    •  Grammar Police

      I believe you meant "Then he already done won."

      by deminva on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:16:47 AM PDT

      •  Southern thing?

        Would you like ``Then he's already won'' better? :)

        (I can see a few other typos as well.  Sorry.)

        by theran on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:32:03 AM PDT

        •  Yeah

          but I mostly just wanted to say that he done won.  I'm Southern, too; perhaps we could recast the sentence as Obama is fixin' to win.

          by deminva on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:40:16 AM PDT

          •  I'm decidedly Northern

            In fact, I think I am one of those comic book liberals everybody hates.  I actually live in MA, have advanced degrees, am Jewish, wear hemp clothes, eat local food, etc. :)

            Anyway.  Yeah.  He has done won it.

            by theran on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:43:11 AM PDT

    •  The Mystery Men approach

      Hillary need to find a kind of balanced attack, where she doesn't put the focus on herself as the attacker.  It's not going to happen, I suspect.

      She needs to practice balancing a tack hammer on her head.  "When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, only then will you be able to head off your foes with a balanced attack."

      by Quiet Thinker on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:26:59 AM PDT

•  Does anyone know it it'll be streamed?

  by bumblebums on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:12:19 AM PDT

  •  CNN usually does.

    They usually stream their debates.  I've watched 2 or 3 from work.

    You're going to want to go to their video page a few minutes before the debate and constantly hit refresh (like waiting for Cheers & Jeers!)

    Their stream was overwhelmed within the first 10 minutes the last time I tried, but a couple of friends who got there early said they didn't have any problems.

    These debates are drawing huge crowds.

    by DemocraticOz on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:55:37 AM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      by bumblebums on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM PDT

•  What Texans should think of Obama after tonight

  "Man, he is a NERD!"

  by jeffwtux on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:12:36 AM PDT

  •  What about

    ``I just saw the next president.''

    by theran on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:14:38 AM PDT

  •  Articles I found about his early campaigning

    sort of said just that only not as a compliment. He let out his inner wonk and they said that didn't connect with the voters.

    This is the time to let Professor Wonk shine...in a presidential way of course

    by joynow on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:04:08 AM PDT

•  I think

  that Obama just needs to keep doing what he is doing. The general appearance of Camp Clinton is one of pettiness and petulance while Obama continues to appear above the fray. If she attacks and starts being venal about things it's just one more opportunity to point out that this is what people are tired of (a variation on the "there she goes again" momen).

  He needs to stay focused and not let himself be brought down to her level while still being able to parry attacks and continue to look and be presidential.

  by Dreggas on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:13:45 AM PDT

•  Barack's smile and his sense of humor

  are lethal weapons.

  by bumblebums on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:14:58 AM PDT

  •  Yep. Can't beat them in a TV debate. n/t

    by theran on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM PDT

•  Clinton's Strategy

  should be to somehow get Obama to rattle on and on about some pledge.  She should induce him to have it typed on a sheet of paper, and in some clever way get him to wave it around a lot.  About two-thirds of the way through the debate, she should subtly trick him into leaving his lectern and walking aggressively toward her, jabbing the paper at her, whereupon she'll look just the teensiest bit startled and recoil slightly before regaining amused composure.

  I believe that strategy would help Clinton win the debate outright.

  by deminva on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:15:32 AM PDT

•  This is the first one on one....

  the last debate with John Edwards, she sat in the middle and got to look like the queen talking down to her lessers.  Reaching toward them, trying to look smart and regal, making long, detailed answers involving Bill's term.

  That won't work this time.  She isn't winning and it is going to strain her imperial stance.  Obama needs to respond clearly on questions from the floor, and respond with certitude to Hillary.  Every time Hillary goes for the "Well, we did this and we did that...."  he has to respond with a "Well, yes, but that didn't turn out so well, because....." answer.  He is going to have to expose the hypocracy that Hillary was oh sooooo involved with policy in the Clinton years and confront her with NAFTA, 96 Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform, etc.  She wants to take credit for anything and everything good that happened from 92-2000, she needs to step up to what went wrong in those years and the fact that the country is paying dearly for THEIR decisions.  

  I'm sure he has been taking a crash course in debate on the Clinton years, because that is her stock and trade.  He should be much better at responding to this crap by now.

  by importer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:16:05 AM PDT

  •  There was a one-on-one debate before this

    I forgot WHERE, but there was a one-on-one before this...  They (Clinton and Obama) played nice.

    by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:36:56 AM PDT

    •  Los Angeles

      Before Super Tuesday.  

      by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:37:17 AM PDT

    •  Yes, but it was a love fest...

      It was right after the three-way where they were both scrapping and Edwards had to say he was the adult.

      Sorry I skipped over it, it was so sticky sweet I couldn't stand it.  They were trying to get past the previous fighting and present themselves as big people.

      This one will be for all the money, marbles and chalk.  They won't be looking starry-eyed at each other.

      by importer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:15:33 AM PDT

•  Anyone know how Obama is feeling?

  I heard he caught this nasty flu that's been sweeping the nation.

  by ekthesy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:16:54 AM PDT

  •  No, I heard he had

    a cold, but this is Texas, it could be the dreaded cedar fever.

    by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:35:28 AM PDT

•  Debate

  Obama can NOT attack Hillary. He must remain above the fray. Hillary will attack him, try to knock him off his feet. She will hope he will say some smart-aleck line that will make him look bad in the eyes of many women who have decided to support Obama in recent weeks. She'll hope they will return.
  She knows she won't get any more male votes, especially white males, so she will use this debate to court or recourt (that's not a word, is it?) women. She wants women, by the hundreds of thousands to turn off the TV after the debate and say to themselves, "Men have run this country long enough, it's time for women to have a shot".
  The one big drawback is that Barack Obama is Barack Obama and not Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Q. White-Male, etc.
  Obama does not need to do anything more than to look presidential and not screw up. If Hillary was Bill (meaning a male) than I would look for a line similar to that that Reagan used against Carter, Carter was blasting his policy about medicare or something and Ronnie shot back, "There you go again". A line that would be the final punch that knocks the opponent down. Not sure a line like that would work against a women.
  Not being sexist, just keeping it real, people. Just keeping it real.

  by The Mort Man on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:17:57 AM PDT

  •  It sounds like

    you are suggesting that Hillary play the gender card.

    Maybe you are right, but if she does that she has to be VERY careful about it.

    by nisleib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:37:07 AM PDT

•  In the debate tonight, Clinton should attack

  Obama for being weak because they are running all over him.

  We need a fighter like Clinton.

  The people in Texas and Ohio like fighters not weak men that can’t take up for their wife.

  by gotalife on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:18:54 AM PDT

  •  As a woman who lives in Texas

    I resent the implication that a woman needs her husband to stand up for her.

    I'm married to a strong man, but I can stand up for myself quite well, thank you very much.

    So can Michelle Obama.

    by elmo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:30:07 AM PDT

  •  Then she shouldn't channel Axl while attacking

    It makes her look scared, not strong.

    by theran on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:30:29 AM PDT

•  As an Obama supporter

  HILLARY MUST INSPIRE

  Negative?  Attack?  You win NO ONE by doing this.  Unless Barack Obama botches up a major point or question, nothing is gained by nit picking every little thing he says.  Hillary has to do soemthing for herself and voters and show why she is better -- not by attacking Obama but by showing it in her own answers.

  There was a time she didn't have to acknowledge the other candidates and she roared through debates like a machine and kept the polls on her side.  Once she started havign to play defense, all hell broke loose.

  Si Gukkart?  Be arrogant in that you need poise.  But you need to win the votes over YOU and what you offer.  Not by attacking Obama, not by marginalizing Obama, not by nitpicking an answer....  You have to SHOW, not TELL America why you'd be a better president -- and not through an attack.  It can be done, as Obama has been doing it.

  by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:23:22 AM PDT

  •  Oh god, I need to start looking at the keyboard

    ...I stopped typing on the home row and look where it got me :(

    by jpfdeuce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:38:49 AM PDT

•  End Zone Dance

  like they do in the NFL.

  by Fools on the Hill on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:24:48 AM PDT

•  I think she will take this approach...

  at least in part: She will try to show her "superior" international knowlege & experience, in light of Kosovo & Cuba. Then at home she will keep hitting on the economy. In response, Barack should try to take the high road,  while countering by reminding people of Hillary's Iraq & Iran votes and NAFTA.

  by Common Raven on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:08:16 AM PDT