Skinner's Post-Debate Post-Mortems - Democratic Underground

Skinner ADMIN

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 08:43 PM
Original message

Skinner's Post-Debate Post-Mortems

Edited on Fri Apr-27-07 04:03 PM by Skinner

I think it would be a mistake to pick one overall winner, because there was no clear winner. I think that most of the candidates probably feel pretty good about their performance; Nobody can claim a clear victory, but many of them can legitimately claim that they succeeded in doing what they wanted to: Raise their profile, get their message out, introduce themselves to the American people, show that they can be competitive at the highest level of American politics. I thought most of the candidates put on solid performances, and nobody made any gaffes.

Having said that, I will now proceed to pick winners and losers. These are just first impressions -- I'm throwing them out there for the fun of it. Your mileage may vary...

There was no winner but if I had to pick one I would pick: Obama. I think that all of the three "top tier" candidates (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards) put in solid performances. None of the three landed a punch against their opponents, and none of the three took any damage. IMHO, a "draw" is arguably a win for Obama. He is the guy with the least experience at this level, and the fact that he was (at very least) even with Clinton and Edwards reinforces the fact that he is the real deal and he is in this race to win it. It also puts to rest for good the idea that Hillary Clinton can lay claim to undisputed front-runner status. Obama is arguably the least well-known of the top three candidates, so he has the most to gain from a solid performance. And his performance was solid; he exudes smarts and charisma. Unfortunately, for all the people he gains with each public performance, he can expect to lose some people when he is forced to articulate positions on various issues that he has so far avoided taking a stand. His comments about the possible use of force with Iran probably lost him some votes among progressives that had previously been projecting their own viewpoints onto his blank slate.

The dark horse winner: Biden. His one-word reply to the question about his verbosity will be the only moment in the entire evening that anyone will remember tomorrow. He also seemed to show a lot more gravitas than I am used to seeing from him. He seemed confident and well-informed, and can make a genuine claim to being the real foreign policy expert in the field. After tonight I think he can make a legitimate claim to being the leading guy in the "second tier."

Solid performance: Hillary Clinton was overall solid, smart, and well-informed. Her delivery was pretty good -- obviously she isn't as charismatic as Obama, but I think she turned in one of her better performances. She can sometimes be rather affected in her public speaking, but she didn't seem that way tonight. I think she did what she wanted to do, and she can feel good about her performance.

Still third: John Edwards was the same John Edwards we got to know pretty well four years ago. Overall, he's a likable guy and his heart seems to be in the right place. He put in a solid performance, but he didn't do anything to change the perception (either positively or negatively) that he is the number-three candidate.

The Kucinich factor: I'll state right up front that I don't think Dennis Kucinich has much chance of being president this time, either. But he seems much more presidential this time around. He seems to have aged nicely in the last four years -- the lines on his face make him look more serious. Clearly, he is going to be the standard-bearer for the progressive wing, and I think he will be taken more seriously this time around. The presence of Mike Gravel in the race should help Kucinich seem more reasonable and mainstream.

The crazy old man: Mike Gravel. I love this guy, but not in the "I really want him to be president" way. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, but he's got a lot of spunk, and he's positioning himself as the bomb-thrower in the campaign. Mostly, I think Gravel's purpose in the race is to provide an example of the out-of-control crazy lefty for other candidates to triangulate against and look moderate.

Didn't lose, but arguably may have lost by default: Bill Richardson. Before tonight I think he was the arguably the top guy of the "second tier" candidates. His performance tonight was fine. Solid, smart, competent. But he was not a stand-out, which helps Biden to make the claim that he is the real top guy of the second tier.

Not enough: Before tonight, I didn't really see any reason why Chris Dodd should be running for president. And after tonight I still don't see any reason. He seems like a decent fella, but he didn't catch fire tonight, and after tonight I can't really see him catching fire.

There it is.