Uncommitted voter evaluates the debate

First, I don't think any of the candidates made any serious errors.  I was disappointed, as was yankeeliberal in Not The Solomon Amendment  on the responses on Russert's ill-formed question on the Solomon Amendment, but since all three answered the same way, there is nothing to distinguish among them on that score.

But I think the political professionals and talking heads by and large totally misread what was happening on the stage.   They were looking at it as political professionals and professional observers and thus were overly impressed by what they perceived as the success of particular tactics and overall style demonstrated by Clinton.   In the process of focusing on that they may well have missed what was happening.  Remember, Obama is promising something different in his approach to our politics and government, and the format and his performance may have gone a long way to cementing the idea that he is the one best able to accomplish that.

I will explain in more detail below the fold.

First, on tone.   Brian Williams actually, after his misstatement about location, put in a dig that the early reviews on MSNBC seemed to totally miss (and I stopped watching the talking heads after about 10 minutes).  He reminded the candidates that he and Russert were only 7 feet away.  Clinton (and to a somewhat lesser degree Edwards) were simply too loud.  Sitting at the table meant the candidates should be using a conversational tone.  Clinton most of the time had a voice volume (and to a degree a pitch) more appropriate to a setting from behind a podium, whether in a debate or addressing a meeting. Simply put, I think she was too loud.   Edwards at times would be a bit loud, although not as much as was Clinton.

Second, the material in the answers.  MEGO --  on far too many answers Clinton threw out a laundry list of proposals, and of previous actions.   I suppose she was trying to demonstrate "experience" and that she would be 'ready" on the first day.  And yet there was usually way too much detail.  I am a political junkie, I know about this stuff, but my response to observing this was to begin to tune out because it was simply way too much.  I wonder how many real policy wonks there were watching and listening, because were you not it might well have come across as annoying, especially when it is was not directly responsive to the question.

Edwards was usually consistent in directly verbally tying his answers back to his key campaign themes.  He may have overdone it a bit, but he did not overwhelm with detail.  For those of us who have heard many other debates or his stump speech, we might tend to forget that his illustrations would likely be new to many viewers/listeners -  thus his mention of 200,000 homeless veterans might well connect with the real audience, which was not Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, and Keith Olbermann.  His - and Clinton's - mention of his familial background, that he is the son of a millworker, that he was the first in his family to have a chance to even consider college, might well connect with a lot of working class people both in Las Vegas and around the rural areas of the state.  Also, I thought his remarks on having grown up when the South was still segregated might have gained him some traction with those for whom continued racial discrimination is an issue.  I think he did a good job of talking about how participation of the war falls more heavily on lower class families, and at least implied that it fell more heavily in rural areas.   He, or one of the others, could have mentioned that the need for jobs or for the opportunity to go to college is one reason those families are more heavily impacted by participation in the war effort, but it might not be possible in a 30 second rebuttal, for example, to make all the connections one might want.

A couple of things I noted about Clinton.  First, she did, despite the overkill in many answers, demonstrate a broad and deep grasp of issues.  The problem is, I'm not sure it is that for which many voters will be looking.  But she deserve credit for that.  I think her reminding the questioners that - other than the attempts, annoying in the case of Tim Russert, to try to focus on possible racial divisions - that this was a debate sponsored in part by groups with a concern for brown and black issues was a good moment, although I'm not sure there was sufficient followup by her, or by anyone else.  Any of the three could have talked about how the economy more deeply affects minorities.

But there were several things that struck me negatively about her performance.  Matthews was raving about her tactic of asking if the other two would co-sponsor her proposed legislation limiting President Bush.     I know my own reaction was that such legislation would never have an effect - either the Republicans in the Senate would filibuster, Bush would veto, or even if he signed it he would use a signing statement to ignore it.  But my real reaction is that it reminded me of her 2000 Senate campaign.  People remember Rick Lazio invading her space at the debate, but tend to forget that he was at that moment pulling a similar stunt on her - pull out something and get your opponent to agree or put them on the defensive.   She avoided it because he invaded her space, violating the rules of that debate.  I felt that particular moment last night was a bit of a ploy, and not necessarily bespeaking of leadership.  Of greater importance, to the average viewer it seemed no more significant than other instances where either Edwards or Obama would say something first and the others would chime in, largely in agreement.  I didn't see it as a particular significant moment.

What I did note is two refusals by Clinton on things I think may have mattered.  While she final did say when pushed that what Robert Johnson had said was wrong, she at first repeated the line that Johnson had explained he had not meant to refer to Obama's drug use (right) and that she accepted his explanation.   Methinks that did not win her any points among those who had been offended by those remarks.   Second, when asked whether she thought Obama and Edwards were qualified to be president, she still refused to answer the question.  That seems intended to leave the impression that she does not.  By contrast, the others may have been criticizing her on policy, but not on qualifications.   My sense is that her refusal to answer that question at that moment may have come across as small-minded and perhaps annoyed some.   I don't think it will help her except with those leaning in her direction already.

As to Obama, I posted a comment on one of the threads last night that this format was more suitable for him than the traditional stand at the podium format.  He kept his voice conversational at all times, which I think went over well.  He has a style of speaking, with stops and starts, that can seem as if he is unsure when speaking from a podium without prepared remarks, but in this context I think it comes across as thoughtful.  I think of the three he did the best job of staying focused on the question that was asked.   On the issue of bankruptcy, he was able to say that he opposed both bills, 2001 and the more recent one -  oh, and that reminds me, that Clinton said that she voted for the 2001 bill but she was glad it didn't become law??? - while the other two had to explain their votes for the 2001 bill, and to admit it was wrong.   So although Obama did not hammer it, that put both Edwards and Clinton in the position of admitting they voted wrong on bnakruptcy as well as on AUMF.  At least subtly, that may have planted the seed of questions about judgment, which is an issue  which has been important in Obama's campaign rhetoric.  I can imagine his tying those votes together when speaking to a crowd, and with some effect.

I think he has some problems on the energy bill.  There is real questioning among Democratic core voters, including the well-educated and upper class voters to whom he wants to appeal and to many independents, about the wisdom of pursuing nuclear energy.  I think he finessed the issue reasonably well, by talking about how Illinois has the most nuclear power plants and the impact his positions have upon his own state, and he did do a decent job of responding to Edwards.  But I think Clinton fairly and effectively criticized him on that bill as being a product of Cheney's deals with the oil and power industries.  In my opinion that might have been his weakest moment.

But I thought Obama's sense of humor was quite effective - I remember at least a few occasions when he got a positive audience response of humor and a bit of applause, and I do not remember one for either of the other two.  I think his answer on the supposed black-latino split was particularly effective, that in Illinois they voted for him.  And for someone running on the need to bring people together for the sake of the country, the overall tone of the debate and the lack of real confrontation among the candidates seemed to me to reinforce that part of his message.

I do not think the debate will have changed many minds.   Each candidate will have somethings positive to which s/he can point, and each made some statements on which s/he can expect to take some incoming fire from the others and criticism from the press.

But given that the debate took place in Las Vegas, whose largest paper is supposedly endorsing Obama today, I would have to say what advantage there was is to Obama.  It was not a massive victory by any stretch of the imagination.  

One surprise to me was that there were no questions about the dispute over the at-large caucuses.  Now, that might have caused some fireworks, and i would have expect Edwards to be on point with criticism of Clinton, and had she refused to forcefully back the idea of the at-large caucuses that might have done her real damage.   But since it did not come up . . .

Nothing I saw or heard in the debate moved me further towards or away from any of the three.  I remain undecided.  But I may be moving in the direction of making a decision sooner than I expected.  I had planned to wait until after the February 5 primaries to make up my mind.   I am seeing enough now that I think I might be able to sit down and evaluate, independently of how other states vote, my position after the 26th, when South Carolina votes.  I want to observe the candidates and campaigns with regard to several points

1. how do they spin last night's debate

2. how do they respond to victories and adversity in the two upcoming primaries

3. what is the lay of the land on the Republican side - that will not be dispositive, but it may be a factor in my decision.

This has been the observation of one person, someone still uncommitted, still as of this moment capable of deciding to support any of the three.  I hope it is of some value to someone.

And now I have to get dressed and go to school.  Fortunately today I don't  teach as my students are in assemblies all day, so I can run a bit late.

I look forward to any responses people may offer.

peace.