In the hours following last night’s Democratic debate, I watched in shock and amusement as Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC crew called the night for Hillary Rodham and let loose on Obama’s performance. Unlike pretty much the entire MSNBC slate of talking heads, I had come away with exactly the opposite impression. As I said last night, I thought Obama did quite well at projecting presidential qualities, including intelligence and seriousness. Hillary, on the other hand, seemed dull and Dole-esque; an aging wonk spouting ClintonSpeak, but unable to effectively convey her Clintonian duplicity without the magic of her husband. Watching Hillary address the issues was like watching the man behind the curtain attempt to deliver the Wizard of Oz’s lines.
Generally, I find that when all of the talking heads react in one way regarding a specific political issue and I react in an entirely different way, I’m usually the one more in tune with the sentiments of the general public. Perhaps my midwestern sensibilities deserve the credit for this dynamic. Or perhaps this is due to growing up around two intensely political Middle American swing voters. There was my grandfather, a sort of Bob Dole moderate-conservative who believed in peace through superior firepower, fiscal prudence, and who was decidedly secular, having little use for religion in government, probably believing in God but thinking it folly that man should presume to know the details. And then there was my grandmother, a pre-Vatican II FDR Democrat who was socially conservative, sympathetic towards collectivism, and distinctly pacifist. I grew up immersed in the political and societal views of both, and watched as both went to the polls to cancel out each other’s vote.
Whatever the case, it appears that once again, DaveG’s instincts trump those of the talking heads:
U.S. Senator Barack Obama emerged a clear winner in tonight’s debate among 8 Democratic candidates for President of the United States, according to a SurveyUSA poll of 403 South Carolina debate watchers. 31% of debate watchers say Obama won. Obama, the only black candidate, was the overwhelming favorite of black debate watchers. U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton finished in 2nd place, picked as the winner by 24% of viewers. Clinton, the only female candidate, did better among women than among men. Former U.S. Senator John Edwards finished 3rd, picked as the winner by 14%. Obama did three times better than Clinton and twice as well as Edwards among South Carolina’s Independents. Obama and Clinton tied among Democrats. Edwards and Obama tied among Republicans. Clinton won among white viewers. 60% of debate viewers were white. 36% of debate viewers were black.
It ain’t easy being Hillary.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
[...] post by DaveG and software by Elliott [...]
April 27th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I missed the debate but tuned in a little for the discussion afterwords. Matthews was as giddy as a school girl. I also heard Obama’s answer to the nuclear bombs hitting american cities question, that was an awful answer.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
They were all quiet and subdued except for Gravel who seemed like he’d wondered in off the street. I didn’t see any examples of articulate passion. There were some examples of inarticulate passion on Edwards and Obama’s part. There was articulate calculation on Hillary’s part. She didn’t show she has a heart yet(maybe it’s just “two sizes too small”).
April 27th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
DaveG, this reveals a lot about your taste in politicians. For those who didn’t watch the debate, let me highlight this excerpt and let you decide if Obama should be considered the winner of the debate:
Potentially take some action to dismantle Al Qaeda? After it’s confirmed that they’ve nuked two of our cities? DaveG, if you think Obama won, you must be a Dhimmicrat, and your support of Guiliani does him a disservice.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:34 am
I agree with JF. I was cringing at Obama’s performance in that debate. I fell to the floor laughing, with not a little bit of sorrow, when I heard his response to the “cities” question. Abysmal. He was overly defensive against two gadflies, attempting to assure them that he wasn’t going to nuke Iran (which is something, you know, we’d all suspected he’d do when 10 minutes earlier he’d sort of, almost, maybe promised to “potentially do something” if we were attacked). And the rest of his responses were absolutely unremarkable. Despite the fact that I thought Richardson performed fairly poorly, I still remember some of things he said. I couldn’t even begin to tell you anything Obama said beyond those two awful exchanges. I agree with the pundits. I think Hillary was the clear winner, and felt Biden helped himself quite a bit by sounding like a serious statesman. Everyone else was varying shades of mediocre. The rest of the public may well have thought Obama won. I don’t know what debate they were watching though, since it couldn’t have been the one where Obama irrevocably affirmed his “empty suit” status in my mind.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:39 am
I’d hesitate to mention this, but that poll you cited noted that Hillary won among white voters. I don’t think there’s any substantial racist bias against Obama currently. In fact, he’s been driven largely to prominence by white support until recent months. Considering a tendency of a minority group to “stick by their own”, I think the perceptions of the debate among white voters, more accurately reflects the performances.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Matt, there’s also something suspicious when 81% of Hispanics thought Kucinich won. Where does that come from? It’s also interesting that Clinton won among self-identified Liberals, and Obama won among Conservatives and Moderates (that seems highly suspicious to me, given that Obama is far more liberal than HRC).
April 28th, 2007 at 12:54 am
JF,
That’s probably because, if you weren’t paying attention, you might have missed how truly awful Obama’s reply to the “cities” question was. And towards the end, Obama’s jousting with the lunatics (Gravel and Kucinich), probably made him seem more moderate. He’d probably realized how ridiculous he’d sounded before, and was trying to assure people that he wasn’t actually an outrageous, lightweight dove.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Dave, I can honestly say you are out of your mind. Watch the debate again and tell me Clinton did not do better than the rest of the candidates. Anyone who thought Obama won obviously did not listen to the debate. Obama’s answers were bare to the bone with very little explination when compared to other candidates. Sure, every candidate had their faults, including Clinton, but Obama did not perform to the expectations. I’ll say he was the fourth of fifth best out of the field of eight. Plus, Obama did not show any presidential qualities in this debate, please, point out some examples.
By the way, you are giving yourself too much credit and that poll too much credibility.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:38 am
to gove Obama some credit, and I thought his response was rather weak as well, Williams never said that 2 cities were nuked, her said two cities were hit. Who knows what “hit” means?, It could mean that two suicide bombs went off in shopping malls, it could mean that some buses blew up, it could mean lots of things. I didn’t necessarily take it to mean that two cities were nuked.
the question was pretty stupid.
that said, it did highlight Rudy’s point earlier in the weak of how democrats don’t get it. EVen Hillary’s answer, which the pundits praised because she used the word “retaliate” was rather weak.
I only wish that was a general debate and Rudy or Fred Thompson responded with: “you mean retaliate like Bill did after the USS Cole? Oh, wait, that’s right, he didn’t. you must mean retaliate like Bill did after Osama published lengthy fatwas in 1996 and 1998 calling on Muslims everywhere to kill Americans wherever they are. Oh, that’s right, he did nothing. You must mean retaliate like Bill did after the African bombings in 1998 when he sent a few cruise missiles into an empty field in Afghanistan. With all due respect, Senator, you and your husband showed more force in sending a little boy back to a communist prison then you did in going after those who called for Genocide of the American people. We already sufferethrough 8 years of you. We, and our children, can’t risk 8 more”
Game. Set. Match.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Good point Jim.
The cities were not nuked.
It would only be someone searching for a reason to criticize Obama who would pretend that that was the question.
And when a Republican searches for a reason to criticize a Dem, that tells me the Dem is seen as a political threat.
Ditto for Rick’s take on things.
Personally, I agree that Obama did best, by a little bit. Nothing very remarkable though.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:22 am
personally, none of them really impressed me. none of them are acceptable and I think that any of them, when put up against Fred Thompson, McCain or Rudy, will lose rather easily. It actually increased my comfort level.
If I had to pick a winner, I’d say Hillary, by default as it’ll be either her or Obama, and he didn’t do anything to overtake her. Keep in mind this like deabate #1 of 20, so it really means nothing in the big scheme of things
April 28th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Jim and Tano, it betrays a lack of will that you’re arguing over what form the attacks took. Who cares? September 11 wasn’t a nuclear attack, but it was an atrocity nonetheless. HRC passed the test, Obama and Edwards did not. If you want to claim that Obama is G-d’s gift to man, how about quoting some concrete proposals he put forth in the debate, and we can argue about how well those proposals come across. I couldn’t find anything of substance in what he said, and his spineless response to the terrorist attack question left me cold. Barack Hussein Obama is too dangerous to be President of the United States.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:47 am
And by the way, a suicide bombing or car bombing don’t require a Katrina-level emergency response. I would say that Obama interpreted the attack more along the lines I propose than the weak excuses you two are proposing.
April 28th, 2007 at 5:43 am
You are all wrong Mike Gravel was clearly the best
April 28th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Indeed JF. I checked numerous blog sites, and they all pretty much interpreted “hit”, as “nuked”. After all, do we talk about NYC being “hit” on September 11? No, we talk about the World Trade Centers being hit. It’s rather bizarre to talk about “hitting” an entire city, unless the devastation is on a wide and massive scale (I don’t think even 9/11 qualifies). I actually didn’t think that much of Hillary’s response either. At the time anyway. I think I was still reeling from Obama’s response. Edwards’ was utterly useless on the question as well. And I literally stood up and clapped when Richardson was asked some other question, and he said something like “look, I’ve got to answer that last question, because it goes to the heart of presidential leadership. I would attack, surgical strikes, or something like that”.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:23 am
[...] More here. [...]
April 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am
“DaveG, if you think Obama won, you must be a Dhimmicrat, and your support of Guiliani does him a disservice.”
Oh, JF, put a sock in it. Anyone who’s been reading this blog for any extended period of time knows full well what I believe, and also knows that, for the most part, it’s not what Obama or any of the Democrats believe. Further, it was quite obvious that I was judging the Democratic presidential candidates based on things like communication skills and the ability to connect with voters and not on the substance of their message. This was not meant to be a “which Democrat is the most conservative” critique, as that Democrat would also be one who would never win the party nod.
The Republican Party is not a church, and, as such, any further “questioning” of my “faith” will be immediately deleted.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:25 am
A couple of observations about this topic.
I just checked over at RedState, where a similar story is posted, and the commentary from the conservative readers is similar to what those here have articulated. Conservatives and Republicans seem almost aghast at the idea that Obama may have been adjudicated the winner by Democrats and left-leaning independents in the debate. And yet the only piece of empirical evidence we have suggests that’s exactly what has happened. Republicans seem more likely to call the debate for Hillary than anyone else, which is exactly what the MSM did. The Democrats and your pal DaveG called the debate for Obama. In both cases, we have unlikely alliances.
I do need to point out that, considering that Democratic primary voters are the ones who will choose the Democratic nominee, Obama does remain the winner of the night. It is entirely and utterly irrelevant just who a debate coach would have deemed the winner, or who won the debate by any objective standard. All that matters is that those who choose the Democratic nominee liked Obama, and considering the goal of each of these candidates is to win the Democratic nomination, that makes Obama the winner.
Finally, I’m noticing that Obama induces a sort of “freak-out” factor in Republicans. There’s been lots of shooting the messenger on this thread, which I think was uncalled for. It’s not my fault that Democrats like Obama. It’s not my fault that he might win the nomination. This is similar to the manner in which Republicans reacted to Bill Clinton, who then went on to win two terms in the White House. Republicans have a way of reacting in a counterproductive manner when a candidate comes along who has the ability to communicate effectively to voters. Obama can be beaten, and quite handily, but it will take the same sort of methodical approach that we would use to beat Hillary. Freaking out every time Obama receives good news is not useful.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Said it before and will say it again: Biden was the only candidate that sounded somewhat reasonable the other night. He was head over heals better, he at least came across as knowledgable. I watched the things, and they are in trouble if this is all they have. They won’t nominate Biden, whose the only one who seemed able to hold his own in a debate. When generals come, I’m looking forward to FDT/Romney/Giuliani/McCain taking on one of them.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
My whole knock on Obama was that he came across as a lightweight.
I don’t get how some of the dimmys think they have a solid group this year. They were really weak.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
“My whole knock on Obama was that he came across as a lightweight.” Substantively, I agree. But Democratic primary voters wouldn’t. And that’s what I was trying to say.
“Biden was the only candidate that sounded somewhat reasonable the other night.” Again, agreed. But Democratic primary voters wouldn’t. And they were the ones I was trying to gauge.
And for this I was called a closet Democrat. And just because some Republicans are terrified that they might have to face a candidate a little harder to beat than Hillary.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I’m no Democrat, obviously, but I watched their debate objectively, and I thought that Biden was the only candidate that looked Presidential. He seemed confident and knowledgable. I don’t agree with 99% of what he said, but at least he seemed to know what he was talking about, and believed in what he said.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Really?
April 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
[...] other thing: after reading DaveG’s declaration that Obama won the Dem’s debate, I have tallied from various sources a debate win for HRC, [...]
April 28th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Yes, JF. Really. A candidate can come across as presidential and still be totally wrong for the presidency on a policy basis. What you’re doing to me is what the anti-Rudy folks did to Rudy over his Ruth Bader Ginsberg comment. Rudy correctly stated that RBG is technically qualified to sit on the high court given her intellect and experience, even though her judicial views are exactly the opposite of his. For this, some conservatives accused Rudy of being a closet judicial liberal. As a fellow who seems amenable to Rudy, I suspect you didn’t like this line of attack any more than I did. I further suspect that you found it intellectually dishonest, as did I.
I recommend that you take a step back and look at the “gotcha” game you’re trying to play with me. I said that Obama seemed presidential the other night. This does not equate to an endorsement of his policies, and anyone with an elementary understanding of political analysis just has to know this. As such, I consider your attack on me to be intellectually dishonest and intentionally misleading, and either it ends now or your posting abilities do. Consider this your first warning. There won’t be a second.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
DaveG, of course I find it unfortunate that you would consider banning me over this, but I don’t think I will stop attacking Obama as a result. You’re right, I am amenable to a Guiliani presidency, but I’m not amenable to an Obama presidency, precisely because Obama is weak on the GWOT, and Guiliani, rightfully or wrongfully, comes across as strong on the GWOT.
I have no problem with opposing viewpoints grounded in an intellectual argument, but my point to you (and LJ, if he happens to read this), is that many are taken in by Obama’s flowery language, but overlook his lack of substance. You stated in the first quote that he came across as intelligent and serious, but you then acknowledged to Tommy that you agree he is a lightweight. I find it hard to reconcile “lightweight” with “presidential, intelligent and serious,” although perhaps you don’t. I’m not taking an asymmetrical viewpoint; as you know, I have also accused FDT of being a lightweight. Obama and FDT are two sides of the same coin, in my opinion, in that both have a great ability to communicate, but are relatively inexperienced. The difference is that FDT isn’t afraid to say what he believes and is proud to be a conservative, whereas Obama is afraid to be clear, and relies on ambiguous doublespeak to persuade the masses. I’ll bet you would have trouble articulating Obama’s policy platform, because despite all his rhetoric, he’s too afraid to put forward any real ideas.
It is easy to disprove me on this, and I would welcome defeat in this argument. Just show me some Obama quotes from the debate that you feel are substantial, intelligent, serious, and presidential, and we can agree or disagree. So far, Obama has relied too much on aura and peer pressure to get by (i.e. everyone says he’s such a great speaker, but I suspect many of those who say so only say it because so many others are saying it, not because they can cite any specific examples).
The point behind this challenge is that I am not so closed-minded as to attack every Democrat and every supporter of a Democratic candidate. I personally believe that of the three Dem front-runners, HRC would be the most moderate and least damaging President for this country, whereas Obama would be the most dangerous candidate due to his hard-left policies and ability to brainwash the masses into believing he is, instead, a moderate. All I’m asking you is to prove me wrong. There’s no “gotcha” here.
April 28th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
JF,
I certainly hope you don’t stop attacking Obama. To the contrary, I hope that you continue to pound him, especially if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
The thing that you and others keep missing is that I never said that I thought Obama was anything other than a lightweight. I said that he was able to *project* presidential qualities, mostly via his communincation skills and charisma. This does not mean that he isn’t a lightweight. It just means he’s good at hiding it, or perhaps at compensating for it with other devices. One can be both intelligent and serious and still be a lightweight. I think those were the three adjectives I used regarding Obama on this thread. I don’t see how any of this is inconsistent.
Admittedly, I’m perplexed at the number of folks who reacted with such vehemence at my mere suggestion that Obama may have helped himself during the debate, espeially given that my view was proved empirically true by a poll of Democrats who watched the debate! I disagree with readers all the time, and they with me, but something that I said seemed to touch a very ugly nerve in many readers. And I did take great offense at you referring to me as a “Dhimmicrat” due to what apparently is a misunderstanding over semantics. But you do understand that had you referred to one of the RedState editors in the same manner, your account would have been cancelled already? I’ve never “zapped” anyone here at R4’08, but I feel that I shouldn’t have to tolerate personal insults on my own site.
April 28th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
DaveG, you ar eright, I was over the line in calling you a Dhimmicrat, when you are clearly a Republican. My apologies. However, I took issue because you portrayed Obama as the winner, and even the flawed poll you cited as proof doesn’t support that conclusion definitively. Look at the crosstabs. 36% of self-identified Democrats thought Obama won, and 37% of self-identified Democrats thought that HRC won. Slim, yes, but a victory for HRC among Democrats. Among self-identified liberals, 32% thought Obama won, and 36% thought Clinton won. So in fact, any way you slice it, from the view of Democrats or generic liberals, Obama didn’t win. You believe he won, and the aggregate pool of those polled believe he won, but you can’t argue that this was “proved empirically true by a poll of Democrats who watched the debate.”
That’s why I interpreted your defense (or promotion) of Obama as crossing red lines, because despite your claims to the contrary, you didn’t do it vicariously. You did it as a Republican. That’s what I find dangerous, and my below-the-belt name calling was meant to call attention to that, to try to break the spell. LJ’s fawning post on April 18th also came as a shock to me, so you’re not alone in this.
Also, I don’t post on RedState and wouldn’t mind getting banned over there, as the site operators are little more than children when it comes to opposing arguments. Some of the things I’ve seen them ban people over have been absolutely absurd, and only reinforce the image of RedState as our very own Daily Kos. In other words, a site with no intellectual firepower and an immature intolerance for forceful debate. I should hope this site doesn’t become RedState, but if it does, I will voluntarily abandon the site.