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

Debating All Weekend LongWhile you vacation, the presidential candidates blab on stage.

By John Dickerson
Posted Monday, Aug. 6, 2007, at 8:38 AM ET
Republican candidates. Click image to expand.

August is supposed to be the slow month in politics. The president disappears to his ranch and Congress shuts down for a month. Even the Iraqi parliament understands this. The presidential candidates, on the other hand, are running all over the place. Over a nine-day period at the start of the month, there will be three Democratic candidate forums, a Republican debate, and the influential Republican straw poll in Ames, Iowa.

This weekend the Democrats debated at the YearlyKos convention of liberal bloggers, and Republicans gave parallel speeches on a stage in Iowa. (Despite the best efforts of the moderators, the GOP candidates didn't have much of a debate.) The blogosphere can be highly confrontational, but the audience of 1,500 members of the liberal blogging community was civil. The debate, a first and a testament to the power of the liberal blogs, was thoroughly conventional. The questions were about the influence of China, the direction of the Supreme Court, and Iraq. The questions about the deficit and improving homeland security could have been asked at the CPAC forum. There was rousing applause in support of the troops and fighting the war on terrorists.

At the Republican debate Sunday, ABC moderator George Stephanopoulos introduced each candidate and their standing in the latest Iowa poll as if to remind them that they were in a heated contest with one another, but—despite a brief spark at the outset—the Republicans spent most of their ammunition on the candidates in the other party, portraying the Democrats as reckless on foreign policy, poised to raise taxes and to socialize medicine. Rudy Giuliani continued to charge that the Democrats fail to talk about the threat from terrorism, though they do, and Duncan Hunter complained that Democratic candidates never praised the troops, though Sen. Chris Dodd had done it as recently as the day before at the YearlyKos convention.

GOP candidates who spend so much time attacking the other party are trying to show that they can stir the blood of Republicans depressed about their unpopular president, the current crop of candidates, and the general cloud that hangs over the party. The Democrats bashed President Bush repeatedly but barely talked about the men running for the GOP nomination. They are engaging with each other more than their GOP counterparts and their party is in a better psychological place. In the ABC poll of Iowa caucus voters only 19 percent of likely Republican voters say they're "very satisfied" with their choices in the presidential contest. On the Democratic side, 53 percent are "very satisfied."

Here's a brief review of how the top candidates did in each debate:

The Democrats

John Edwards: He is the favorite among DailyKos readers and bloggers, and he delivered for them. His populist message may or may not win him the nomination, but given the strategy he has chosen, he hit his marks. He was passionate, and he repeatedly pointed out how he would go further and fight harder than the other candidates to fundamentally change Washington. His sound bites will play well on YouTube and in conversations after the debate. His best tactical move was putting pressure on Hillary Clinton without looking shrill. He challenged the party, and other presidential candidates, to immediately refuse campaign donations from lobbyists. Since Clinton takes donations from lobbyists, this set up her most uncomfortable moment in the debate. (This is precisely the kind of move McCain needed to pull off in his debate but didn't.)

Barack Obama: He continues to improve his debate performances, showing more vigor and passion. He was pointing his finger so much in his answers it looked like he was poking a tricky elevator button. He came alive when the debate turned to the influence of lobbyists. He challenged Clinton's assertion that they don't play a negative role in the political process. "The insurance and drug companies gave $1 billion over the last 10 years," he said to applause that turned into a standing ovation. "Hillary, you were talking about your [health care] effort back in 1993, and you can't tell me that money didn't make a difference, and you can't tell me that the money they are spending is just to contribute to the public interest."

Hillary Clinton: She didn't lose. That's a win for her. Her responses were mostly just like the ones she has given at the other debates—thoughtful, reasoned, and brimming with the appearance of competence. She also did far better than we might have expected given that she was facing a crowd that has been hostile to her. But she had a bad moment when she defended taking money from lobbyists and insisted it was silly for anyone to think that political donations influence political behavior. This audience booed and chuckled, but the reaction in the room isn't what's important. The moment is portable. It can be used in an ad by one of her rivals, but also anyone making the case that she's the establishment Washington candidate needs only to cite her defense of lobbyists. Secondly, her answer animated her rivals to talk about an issue they can get passionate about. It played into John Edwards' strategy for the day and gave Obama his best moment of the afternoon.

Everyone else: Dennis Kucinich is not going to get the party's nomination, but he is a sunny, forceful advocate for his views. So many long-shot candidates engage in ever-escalating acts of embarrassing performance art to get noticed. Kucinich does none of this. Sen. Biden did not participate in the debate, but Chris Dodd apparently drank his colleague's Red Bull. Dodd was animated and for one moment appeared to even roar. After his rousing declaration in favor of taxpayer financing for campaigns he seemed to surprise himself a little at the stemwinder he'd given.

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 Tancredo, Thompson, Brownback, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, and Hunter by Justin Hayworth/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:

The yearlykos crowd was Edward's to lose and Hillary's to lose. Edwards was passionate but in a demagogic way that talked down to the crowd. And he was the first candidate to get aggressive and attack the others (not counting Gravel) which did not play well in this crowd. Edwards, while super bright, comes across as a preening peacock who is using the populist shtick to win the office. And his answer that he would appoint Elizabeth Edwards as his White House blogger (a non-brainer question asked of all the candidates) was sour on two counts - he used his wife inappropriately and hey don't we want to stop the nepotism now!!!!

Hillary did fine. I think she emerged as many people's second choice if not their first. She comes across as competent and knowing and her answer on the contributions side was pretty straightforward. The guy who blew that question was Edwards, who was rendered speechless by Kucinich when Kucinich asked Edwards if he would forego contributions from hedge fund managers. Hey - it was a sophisticated crowd. How can you not take money from the lobbyists but take money from the guys who hire the lobbyists?

And Obama is showing his strength day by day. He was knowledgeable, quick on his feet and had a keen sense of humor. He did not talk down to the crowd.

--ChicagoPerspective

(To reply, click here.)

The freshest voices on the Republican side are Huckabee and Paul. But people (voters) fear change, and fear the unknown as well. Thats what we could have with these two- change and unknown. Paul is fun to watch at the debates, but his positions dont seem to align with mainstream Republicans. (Although the poll of voters had Paul and Romney neck and neck, winning the FOX News channel debate a couple months back)

If your name is not Guliani or Romney, or to some extent, Thompson, (sorry Tommy, not you) there is very little chance of gaining the nomination. Thats too bad, because these candidates are not what we have been led to believe is "conservative".

If this were 2004, and Romney were named Kerry, he would have been swiftboated into "flip-flopper land" by now. Romney came off as a boor during this debate, constantly trying to respond to other candidates during their turn to speak. I agree with Dickerson, his handlers are trying to turn him into Reagan-lite. We've been there and done that too.

So I liked Huckabee, I think he has done well at every event, and continues to gain name recognition. He doesnt screw up, doesnt have a questionable background and speaks well. The name Huckabee doesn't roll off the tongue, and thats too bad. President.... Huckabee? I know a funny name is a shallow reason not to vote for someone, but there are all sorts of reasons voters use to make their decision.

Its still unclear who will emerge as the Republican nominee. Mitt Romney seems likely to be on the ticket in some capacity.

How would a Romney/McCain ticket match up to an Edwards/Obama ticket? Would it come down to who has the best hair?

--NorCal

(To reply, click here.)

(8/6)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby