Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Test TubeThe Democrats' YouTube debate is surprisingly entertaining.

By John Dickerson
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2007, at 8:31 AM ET

(Continued from page 1)

Obama also was more assertive, making direct claims about his promises and his future action. "That's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States," he said several times, another trope he hadn't used frequently before. These are at one level mere debate tricks, but Obama has shown he can be inspirational. He's now showing that he can be disciplined even in settings that don't lend themselves to his natural talents.

John Edwards: He came to fight and he did. He didn't lash out at any particular opponent, though he did start the evening sounding like he might. "Do you believe that compromise, triangulation, will bring about big change?" he asked, referring to a strategy perfected by former President Bill Clinton. "I do not." But that's as pointed as he got about his opponents. (Later, he even complimented the seriousness of Obama's health-care plan). Instead Edwards pressed his populist case as passionately as he has at any previous debate, presenting himself as the only one who would take the fight to banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and other special interests. His genuine outrage was readily apparent, which was a far more effective way of showing his passion than when he merely speaks about how passionately he cares about things.

Edwards also had some strong moments of stagecraft. He turned a question about women signing up for Selective Service into a chance to praise the female fighter pilot who flew the first missions into Iraq and who sat with his wife. He answered a question about his faith journey on gay marriage in a way that some might find confusing but that I found thoroughly authentic.

All of the candidates made 30-second "YouTube-style" videos. Clinton copied D.A. Pennebaker; Obama's was flat and Dodd's was the most amusing. Edwards' team may have made the best one, a montage of pictures showing the woes both foreign and domestic and set to the theme from the musical Hair, a reference to the flap over his $400 haircut. He clearly got his message across during the evening; the key question that his candidacy faces is just how strong and big a vote he can create for himself with his stirring populist pitch.

Joe Biden: He's liberated, and it looks good on him. At the first Democratic forum, the Delaware senator was asked about his long-windedness, which now seems like question from a full Biden ago. In his new iteration, when he talks, you want to hear him go on. He's not generating stale wind or tap dancing—he's making an appeal for truth and honesty in politics, which is appealing from any quarter. You don't have to like what he's saying to admire the way he says it. That's good for Biden because a lot of Democrats won't like what he was saying. His political problem is that while he has a plan like no other candidate for Iraq, his honesty on how hard and long it will take to pull out of there is not popular. When he calls for truth in the debate about defunding the war, he's criticizing the party's most active members. His passionate case for ground troops in Darfur is noble but seems like a really hard sell, given the nation's war weariness and given how stretched the military already is.

Bill Richardson: The New Mexico governor had his best performance. He still looks tentative and uncomfortable on-stage, but he showed a command of the facts in a way he hasn't in previous performances. He tried to show the differences with the other candidates, which suggested discipline: He knows why he's on the stage and what he has to do (an open question in past evenings). But Richardson's plan for complete withdrawal from Iraq in six months seems completely unworkable, and when he lists his plans for combating problems, he piles them up in a way that seems a little sloppy and unrealistic.

The Others: Chris Dodd was occasionally passionate, but on a lot of his answers, it sounds like he's stalling for time. Dennis Kucinich knows where he stands, and boy, if you want change, he's offering it, but Democratic voters don't want that much change—at least not from him. Mike Gravel has always seemed like the kind of person who would tape angry YouTube rants in the cold backyard shed, so he seemed at home in a way. He complained about the little amount of time he was given to respond, which wasted his time, but was momentarily endearing when he talked about a teacher who had influenced him, a question that was put to all candidates: "He recognized me as a very failing student because I was dyslexic and couldn't read very well. And so he gave me some attention and taught me to speak. And that's what little chance I get to use it today."

Disclaimer: I am a political analyst for CNN, which co-sponsored the debate with YouTube.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at .
Photograph of Sens. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama at the CNN/YouTube debate by Stan Honday/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Clinton and Obama were pretty slick, which is why I don't trust them. Seeing them up there I came to hate them both, as their answers always seemed to conceal some loophole. They were the most professional, which is to say, they were the most untrustworthy. They both blew hot air but made sure it had a sweet enough scent that nobody would notice they didn't exactly answer the question. Not only that, Obama's "no special interests" talk doesn't answer the question posed by that loony guy they let on stage. These two are bad news. Why does it seem that I'm the only one that sees this?

Of the others, only Edwards and Joe Biden really stand out. Both of them seem to have real goals as to what course the administration should take, and Edward's progressive talk seems to have some sincerity behind it. Joe Biden was the only one who glued his answers to earth and reality. I didn't like him for every minute, but I would be willing to trust him. What he said about Dafur counts for a lot to me as well; diplomacy takes time and in some cases that time just doesn't exist. I think his answer to the gun lover's question will go over well in the coastal cities, but it's actually a blunder elsewhere... In any case, though perhaps both of them have the wrong personality to become president, both of them seem to have a real personality. Clinton and Obama are ciphers. Their real personality is somewhere else, their real views are hidden.

--Adamatari

(To reply, click here.)

I thought the clear winner in last nights debate was the format. For a first go at this type of exchange between The People and the candidates, my impression is that this is a great forum for Us to get to know these would be presidents a little better. The questions were at times funny, others passionate, personal, and usually smart. There was one or two "silly" questions slipped in for entertainment purposes, I don't think it took away from the overall event. Even professional press corps ask dopey questions sometimes.

Hillary seemed polished and professional, answered every question without stumbling and came out with a slim lead over Obama. She included every candidate on stage with a statement of praise while simultaneously getting a dig in on "the current administration", which the audience supported. That was a prime moment.

Barack continued to improve his stature in the race. He is getting a reputation as a capable speaker, and again last night, when he spoke, it was with steady confidence and a tone that would not be an uncomfortable voice to listen to for the next four year term. If his policy can match his stage presence, I feel he will rise to the top. (I have a criticism: he kept referring to Us as "ordinary Americans". I in no way consider myself ordinary, nor do I consider politicians extraordinary. That raised my condescension meter.)

John Edwards can't seem to rise above Clinton or Obama. Last night was not an exception. While he didn't make any gaffes, I don't think his performance would sway a voter that was not already leaning his way.

Kucinich is an excellent democratic candidate. He is unwavering left on all issues, and passionate about his platform. I like Dennis Kucinich as a candidate, unfortunately .....he's kinda funny looking. Too bad, because he seems grounded, smart, has conviction and even a sense of humor. He definitely got off the best exchange last night when he said to Anderson: I notice you didn't put anybody to the left of me..." to which Anderson replied: "we couldn't find anybody!"

Joe Biden could be a good president, but proved last night that we need to settle somewhere between the $10 he spent, and $400 Edwards doo, on the amount we will accept a candidate spend on his haircut.

I thought Gravel was great. His answer to every question was: "Follow the money, you want to see who you're voting for, just follow the money....." All while pointing his finger at the frontrunners. That was great!! The scary part about Gravel, what he says is probably the closest thing to the truth that any one of them will speak, so the mainstream candidates will try to minimize his voice by allowing him to come across as a little strange. His message, like Paul, is that the eventual winner is going to be beholden to special interest.

--NorCal

(To reply, click here.)

Okay, I give up: Who was the silver-haired geezer blurting shit out to no one in particular? Is he a candidate, or did he just wander in from the street like it's open mic night at Laugh-A-Lot's in Des Moines? He was like going off on Obama about $136,000 dollars in campaign funds from some shady corporation or something. He was hysterical. He brought just the right amount of surrealism and watching your grandpa listen to the radio and talking to it to the festivities. Highly reminiscent of Ross Perot's running mate, who's now dead.

Last night, blazing on weed, Hilary looked presidential. (Okay, me blazing, Hilary presidential.) She also looked like she was in the middle of anaphylactic shock. How much makeup does one need for high definition TV? It made me hungry for pancakes.

Dennis Kucinich. How can you not love this guy? He's like this woodland creature who just stumbled out of the enchanted forest to tell people exactly what they don't want to hear, namely, the truth. He can do this, obviously, only because there's no way in hell this country elects an alien space pod-dweller from another planet president. Yet.

--switters

(To reply, click here.)

(7/26)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.