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

Closing ArgumentsThe final messages from Democrats in the last Iowa debate.

By John Dickerson
Posted Friday, Dec. 14, 2007, at 11:24 AM ET
Des Moines Register Democratic Presidential Debate. Click image to expand.

First, I'd like to apologize. That's what you do after Des Moines Register debates, apparently. Wednesday after the GOP debate, Mike Huckabee apologized to Mitt Romney for his remarks about Mormonism. Thursday the story coming out of the debate was Hillary Clinton's apology to Barack Obama for her New Hampshire co-chairman (who has since resigned), who was talking about Obama's past drug use.

The political press focused on the apologies because the debates lacked conflict. The candidates desperately want the Des Moines Register endorsement, and they weren't going to get docked points by misbehaving at the paper's debate.

With 21 days before the caucuses, we are moving into the "closing argument" phase, when candidates try to deliver their final message about themselves. If a candidate makes the pitch right, the closing argument should be the essential message a voter blurts out in a word-association game. Here, then, are the words that came to mind for me after watching the 90 minute event.

Fight: When John Edwards isn't banging his fist on the table, he's shoving it under the nose of big business. In nearly every debate answer, he knocked rapacious corporations and vowed to take them down. He was a bit of a One-Note Johnny, but that's fine in politics. The discipline made him perhaps the most effective candidate of the day. The more appealing second half of his pitch came at the end of the debate when he was asked to name his New Year's resolution. "To remember that in the midst of political hoopla," he said, "that somewhere in America tonight a child will go to bed hungry, somewhere in America tonight a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child."

Work: After the debate, Hillary Clinton's pollster Mark Penn used the word perspiration repeatedly to describe how his candidate would deliver for voters. Here's how Clinton put it herself during the debate: "Some people believe you get [change] by demanding it. Some people believe you get it by hoping for it. I believe you get it by working hard for change." She's knocking first Edwards and then offering herself as the pragmatic workhorse. To accentuate this pitch, next week Clinton will embark on a five-day, 99-county tour of the state, a considerable show of effort. She may get down and do push-ups at some point.

Clinton is not just saying that taxpayers will get their money's worth, but that she will be sweating for them. As she says in her new ad, she "will stand up for you every day in the White House." This message is matched with a new empathy push. She gets regular folk. That's what her mother says in Clinton's other new ad and what the candidate was going after when in the debate she talked about Iowans feeling "over a trap door." This message has essential elements of Bill Clinton 101: I feel your pain and will work till the last dog dies.

The trouble for Clinton in her closing message is that I've heard a lot of versions of it from her campaign aides in the past week in Iowa. Her campaign is about women, health care, experience, change, and empathy. To make an effective closing argument, she'll have to whittle.

Hope: This is the word that comes to mind with Barack Obama after the debate, but only because it's always the one that comes to mind with him. Without looking back at my notes from Wednesday, there's no particular moment that screams out about his message the way it did with Clinton and Edwards. This doesn't mean he didn't have a fine afternoon, including a light-on-his feet riposte to Hillary Clinton. It may just mean that he answered the questions without always dragging them back to the main theme of his campaign.

Obama's campaign aides argue that he's the only candidate offering voters the change they want, but all the candidates claim that title, and all will deliver it one way or another. The way Obama delivers on his change pitch is not by offering to fight or sweat but to promise an inspirational force that he says will move Washington past the debates and squabbles that have locked up the city for the last 20 years. (If this sounds like New Age gobbledygook to you, it doesn't to Iowans.)

As for the other candidates, Dodd and Richardson turned in perhaps their best performances of the campaign, and Biden was strong as always. Everyone did well. It was a little like a T-ball tournament: minimal conflict, and afterward everyone deserves a prize.

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 debate by John Gaps III-Pool/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:

I must say the Democrats behaved themselves rather well, particularly in comparison to the Republicans, who only seemed interested in jabbing each other because they had nothing substantive to say about the issues. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats didn't punch each other very hard, didn't talk over each other, and didn't keep blabbing long after the moderator called "time." In fact, most of the Dems gave shorter answers and concluded well within the allowed time limits.

I don't know if this is some kind of portent, a harbinger of things to come in the primaries, a pattern that will persist into the general election, or an indicator of how a Democrat might act as president compared to a Republican. I doubt it. Even so, the Democrats look golden right now. They're much more focused on the issues, much less concerned about appealing to fears and insecurities, and much more hopeful and inspirational than the Republicans.

Of course, the difference may be due to what the Democrats have to do to appeal to Democratic caucusers, versus what the Republicans have to do to appeal to Republican caucusers. If so, we'll probably return to business as usual after Iowa, with negative ads, personal attacks, windy speeches, and so on. If not, and if the Democrats can stay on the path they're walking in Iowa, they will shred the Republicans. People are very, very tired of listening to the same old "Fear him! Mistrust him! Vote for me!" crap we're fed every election cycle. Americans are primed to vote for hope over fear. All we have to do is convince the candidates and their handlers to believe it.

The Democrats already have a clue, but will probably lose it right after Iowa. The Republicans have yet to get a clue.

--Arlington

(To reply, click here.)

(12/16)

Washington Post