Given the high stakes, will you be watching?
UPDATE: Quick reactions to the Republicans.
Ron Paul: Obsessed with gold and the money supply; I can't imagine how his formulation of why America's fighting terrorists (because we've "invaded their countries" or whatever he says exactly) is going to play among Republicans. Good luck!
John McCain: The only candidate to talk seriously about climate change. Looks very old, but a couple of great one-liners about Mitt Romney).
Mitt Romney: Slick, no question about that. I love how every time someone points out his wild inconsistencies (McCain said he is the "candidate of change," and not in a good way!), Romney says it's a "personal attack." Whatever. Romney also got ganged up against tonight, particularly by McCain and Giuliani, but also Fred Thompson and others. At times he appeared pissed, exasperated, taken aback, or something.
Rudy Giuliani: I actually thought he won the debate, the only problem is it might be too late for him in New Hampshire.
Fred Thompson: Seemed pretty much disengaged from it all, not sure what he thinks he's accomplishing. Also seemed grumpy, angry, and harsh. Blech.
Mike Huckabee: He's very good at this, folksy and funny. I think he did well, just behind Giuliani.
General comments: This was a real debate, excellent job by ABC's Charlie Gibson on this one. For once, a debate that wasn't about the moderator -- yay!!!
Also, Barack Obama got a lot of attention from Republicans tonight, a lot of which was positive (including the "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" kind).
Bottom line: McCain was the front runner before the debate, probably will be after the debate. The battle is now for second place, and Romney has to win it or he's probably toast.
UPDATE #2: Quick reactions to the Democrats.
Hillary Clinton: She did fine, although I thought her answer on global warming didn't answer the question. She was sort of ganged up against by Obama and Edwards, who both claimed the "change" mantle against her. I don't know that she articulated a forceful, clear response to the criticism that she is part of the system so how is she going to change it. Excellent moment with the "my feelings are hurt" line...I definitely felt that she hit the right chord there. Did Clinton's "angry" moment help or hurt her? I'm not sure.
Barack Obama: Seemed a bit tired (could just be that his voice was hoarse), but overall did well...looked and acted like the frontrunner that he now is. Good line about switching from the Republican debate to football (and he knew the Redskins lost). Hit his themes of hope, change, bringing people together, etc. Also gave a strong answer about going after Osama bin Laden if he had actionable intelligence.
John Edwards: Very passionate, strong performance, humorous at times, excellent job. Also, apparently made a strategic decision to help Obama against Clinton, try to knock her out and then fight it out with Obama. Very interesting strategy, we'll see if it works.
Bill Richardson: Uneven as he often is. Very humorous at times, great job with the Whizzer White answer. Excellent line about experience not being a "leper." On the other hand, he talked about the Soviet Union, which didn't exist when he was energy secretary (and certainly doesn't exist now), and tended to ramble at times.
General comments: I think if I hear the word "change" one more time I'm going to puke. Everyone wants change, but change from what to what exactly? I mean, change in and of itself isn't a good thing, let's say the change from health to sickness (the other way around, now, that's another story!).
Scariest question of the night: if a nuclear bomb went off in an American city, which some experts have estimated is a 30% likelihood (or more) in the next 10 years, what would you do and what would you wish you had done? Yikes.
Bottom line: Obama led heading into the debate, probably will win on Tuesday. The question is, can Edwards catch Hillary for second place, in which case Hillary will be in big trouble.
But was it just me or was Charles Gibson being condescending? I felt like his entire questioning was like that. Oh! And the most important issue that has not been discussed is that fact that the U.S. will be subject to a nuclear attack in the next 10 years. Though he later softly stated that was a 30% chance according to "experts." What was that about?
I had the candidates rated:
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton
4. Richardson
On the anger note, if you had devoted 35 years of your life to public service and people were minimizing your contribution, wouldn't you be pissed? If you are in stark contrast to President Bush and people say you are the status quo, you wouldn't be irked by that? I think it is understandable and reasonable. I would expect nothing less of any person when the core of their character is questioned.
Suskind's 1% Doctrine is scary because it shows that our executive branch has become unhinged to the point of making policy to prevent things that will never happen. We need to get back to the America that is confident in our ideas, confident in the treaties for collective security that we've ratified, and soberly address where the fault lines in our security infrastructure may lie.
The only way we're going to get hit by a nuclear weapon in the near future is by a ballistic missile so armed -- the only states capable of this are Russia and China, I believe. We should stop undermining our collective security under the treaties that ended the Cold War by trying to pursue pie in the sky solutions that don't work, a la missile defense nonsense, and find ways to strengthen cooperation against nuclear proliferation and missile proliferation.
Charles Gibson is a fool.
Kinda reminds me of the Marx brother's skit about the bridge game against the high society ladies: They kept playing the ace of spades over and over in the same hand, the morale of that story being that there's no limit to the number of times the GOP can keep playing the same card until the voters invoke the ultimate card limit by voting them out of office -- or by impeaching Cheney, then Bush.
T.C.
Repubs: The thing that struck me the most was how incredibly unlikeable Mitt Romney is. How can anyone -- Dem, Repub, Independent, man, woman, Martian, Venusian -- feel warm and fuzzy enough about this jerk to actually want him to be president? He's slick, he's phony, he's dishonest, he attacks everyone else full force but shows how thin-skinned he is when anyone else attacks him. It's obvious that all the other GOP candidates absolutely detest him, which is rare among politicians, who mostly strive for collegiality.
Giuliani, McCain and Huckabee all showed some grasp of the issues and ability to communicate. Thompson was phoning it in and Paul was whiny and annoying.
Dems: All did well, but among the four, Hillary proved the least effective communicator. She's a fine policy wonk, knowing issues backwards and forwards, but misses the personal touch her husband did so well. On health care, for example, Edwards talked about his parents, Obama talked about his mom dying of cancer -- and Hillary gave a lot of facts and figures.
Obama had his best night -- he parried every one of Clinton's thrusts effectively and made the case that a good communicator can in fact bring about great change if he unites and inspires the country to do big things. Edwards did his usual effective trial attorney thing and Richardson also had his best night, hilarious and likeable in a big teddy-bear kind of way.
Hillary went on the attack a few times, which she has every right to do, because the press has been harder on her than on her opponents, and it is important to examine their records too. But the attacks clashed with the thoughtful policy dialogue of the debate, and Obama's teflon deflected the attacks as powerfully as ever.
Bottom line -- Obama's on a tear, and I don't see anyone stopping him. On the Repub side, I think it'll be McCain and Huckabee battling it over the long run.
I agree with you about Romney, he's completely unlikeable, vapid, "soulless" was the word that kept popping into my mind as I watched him.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your analysis as well. Next time, you want to do the RK debate coverage? :)
Trying to appeal to the masses with arguments that seem most populist were Huckabee, as usual, and Ron Paul, though he was not at his best tonite, certainly not as good as he was on Moyers Friday nite.
On the Democratic side, the populist approach was taken by Edwards again, along with Obama. Hillary was sort of in the middle, between populism and reality.
The appeal to the masses, best exemplified in debates by Obama, Huckabee, Ron Paul and Edwards has taken them all (except Paul) farther than they might have gone by merely reciting the facts, history, or trends. Visions, however impractical, stir the masses, and these advocates are good at that. In a debate, the masses will find them appealing, as we have seen by the poll numbers. Because of their emphasis on appealing to the masses, I call this type of orator a massdebater. And the further they go into the campaign, the greater they seem to have a leg up on the others.
The other type of debater is the one who can rely on history, accomplishment, facts at the fingertips to prove a point, and so on, along with the ability to twist any of their knowledge into advancing the outcome they pursue in their speeches or arguments. They are less interested in being the visionary. Romney, Hillary, Rudy, McCain fit this type, a group I'll call cunning linguists because of their ability to use language and mold it and its content into their arguments.
Tonite, the massdebaters Obama and Huckabee did well. The cunning linguists, Hillary (great on counterattacks) and Mitt Romney, seemed the best of their group.
The rest--McCain looked old, Richardson looked somewhat out of his league, as usual, Ron Paul had a bad night, Edwards looked fine, and Fred Thompson better check to see whether the DA job might be open if Sam Waterston steps down.
The winner: The massdebaters, by a hair.
A close second: The cunning linguists, led by Hillary.
.
I thought Edwards let Clinton of the hook at the end when he apologized to her about criticizing her outfit in the past. It reminded people that some of the criticism directed at her is sexist and hallow.
Having said that, I'm not sure that most Americans are going to focus on those kinds of details. I've bounced back and forth between being an Obama supporter because of his charisma and ability to inspire people versus being a Hillary supporter because of her domestic and foreign policy experience. I think very highly of Hillary Clinton and I think she performed well tonight. But I think that all three of the other candidates demonstrated more personality, passion, and a home-spun quality that appeals to people on a gut level. She is the ultimate policy wonk (and Richardson and Obama at times talk like that too). I happen to admire policy wonks, but I think I'm in the minority!
After all this time and debates I am still with the policy Wonk, Hillary. Last night it was great to hear her respond in a forceful manner. Many said that hurt her, but I am not so sure about that. I know I do not want someone to back down when attacked. I know this, she got those on the stage attention and backed them down. A great quality when negotiating against others who want to attack you.
My second choice is still Edwards, then Obama. Richardson has great qualities but is not a good choice for President. All he is doing now is being a spoiler, as he was in Iowa, that is throwing the polls way off, causing the electorite to change their minds every other day.
Give it up Bill. I do not want a Republican in the WH if you can pull off your "Kill the Front Runner Ways".
However, at the end of the day, when 2009 hits, what matters the most is not the current plan, but the person who can lead a coalition to enacting good legislation. This requires two things -- 1) having sufficient coattails and inspiring the country to throw very many Republicans out of office up and down the ticket, and then 2) marshalling the power of persuasion to get legislation through a new Congress.
In that regard, I see Obama as head and shoulders as the best candidate, in that he is by far the most likely to lead an electoral revolution in '09.
Make no mistake about it, there is movement here. Only 50% of this sample is after the Iowa caucus results were known and there has been a 5-point swing on the Democratic side. Clinton started out leading 32% to 26% over Obama and now she is in a dead heat at 31% to 30%. Obama has won in that part of the sample taken since Iowa - and just this past one day alone Obama led by 8 points.
My prediction: Obama wins NH by 5-10 points, with a possible last-minute surge by Edwards as well. Just 2 days to go.
Who is the best change agent is the next logical question. Is it Edwards, Obama, or Clinton?
Clearly Clinton represents the status quo. Nobody can seriously argue that she is a change agent. She has never found a donation she didn't like. With Clinton, it's going to be business as usual in Washington.
So the debate should be about who the best change agent is, and who would initiate the most benefitial changes. Is it Obama or Edwards? And of those two people, who can beat the Republicans in a general election?
Reviews Are In: Hillary 'Very Strong Performance,' 'Tour De Force,' 'Very Effective' Boston Globe's James Pindell - 'Hillary Clinton tonight had a very strong performance.' "I need to say this. We enter these two debates, very important debates here at WMUR with two candidates up against the ropes. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. One candidate, Mitt Romney did not get off the ropes. Hillary Clinton tonight had a very strong performance, and I think she did." [WMUR, 1/5/08]
Washington Post's Chris Cillizza - Hillary showed 'she was willing to fight for it' and that could 'resound with New Hampshire voters.' "Clinton seemed to show tonight that she was willing to fight for it and that could potentially resound with New Hampshire voters who, unlike their compatriots in Iowa, tend to like a bit of combativeness in their politicians." [Washington Post's The Fix, 1/5/08]
NBC News' Chuck Todd - Hillary made 'a very effective hit on Obama and Edwards.' "Clinton just made a very effective hit on Obama and Edwards because she was able to do as a counterpunch rather than as a direct hit. She got it out there to New Hampshire indies that Obama's chief state supporter is a state lobbyist. And she was able to hit Edwards for not passing anything in the Senate. BTW, not sure why the moderator just inserted himself on this, but... Clinton is getting a much-needed opportunity to make her change argument." [MSNBC First Read, 1/5/08]
ABC News' Rick Klein - Hillary's gave 'a tour de force of an answer' on Pakistan. "Pakistan... Hillary Clinton is the first to connect it to her campaign message: 'We have to be very conscious of all the consequences.' She finds five consequences... A tour de force of an answer. Experience begets change. That's the campaign message." [ABC News, Political Radar, 1/5/08]
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder - 'Very Sophisticated.' "HRC...gives a very sophisticated answer about the interrelationship between insecure weapons and India's fears." [Atlantic, Marc Ambinder, 1/5/08]
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos - Obama looked 'a little peevish, a little small.' 'Not a good moment for Barack Obama there. I thought he looked a little peevish, a little small.' [ABC News, 1/5/08]
The Hill's Sam Youngman - Hillary 'showed a fire Thursday night that was new to her debate performances.' The Hill, 1/5/08]