Hillary Back In the Driver's Seat
If there were any doubts, Senator Hillary Clinton proved that she did belong inside the all-boy’s club early in last night’s debate on the campus of the University of Las Vegas in Nevada. Like any accomplished prize fighter—the presumptive Democratic nominee came out swinging, going right after her opponents soft spots, first on Senator Barack Obama’s health care plan-which doesn’t provide for all Americans, like hers does—then she turned the tables on John Edwards' swipes that she’s part of Washington’s corrupt system, labeling such talk ``mudslinging’’. The debate never really made it to the second round, all the punches came early, and it was the New York senator who came away with an early decision.
Clinton, much like her opponents, never got around to offering clear answers, but she did establish herself as a combative candidate, who wasn’t about to stay at the bottom of the pile after her lifeless performance in Philadelphia.
There will be plenty of Friday morning quarterbacking today, what each candidate did right or wrong; but clearly one of the costliest fumbles of the night is when Obama couldn’t give a simple ``yes’’ or`` no’’ answer whether illegal immigrants should have drivers licenses, the very issue that sent Hillary spiraling to the canvas for being so evasive during the last debate.
Obama gave a long tortuous answer that sort of suggested he supported it; then he bobbed and weaved, and then it appeared like he was tilting the other way, before CNN's Wolf Blitzer pressed him for a yes or no answer. When it came to Clinton’s turn--she gave a simple, stress-free one word, ``no’’, which was helped, in part, by Gov Eliot Spitzer decision to drop his controversial license plan ; nonetheless, the exchange helped the New York senator regain her footing, her confidence picked up, and it was her chief combatants: Obama and Edwards who found themselves back on their heels, and wondering how they let Clinton off the hook.
The biggest loser in this debate, I thought, was Blitzer’s inability to control the candidates long-winded reply’s without answering the questions. The CNN host repeatedly let the Democratic candidates turn their answers into miniature pep rallies, as they pandered to the crowd’s passions. Time and again, whether it was Edwards being asked to defend his support of a trade bill with China, Clinton’s views on merit raises for teachers, Gov Richardson’s not clearly answering whether human rights was more important than America’s national security—all the candidates, with the exception of Joe Biden, kept rambling like energized bunnies, and never really answered the questions posed to them. Blitzer, along with Campbell Brown and John Roberts, let the candidates treat the debate as if it was just another stump speech. The moderator should have threatened to silence the mikes on any candidate who refused to answer questions, or who wandered off course.
It was interesting to note in CNN’s post-debate coverage, with Anderson Cooper, David Gergen, James Carville, J.C. Watts, et al, Biden’s name wasn’t mentioned within the first 10 minutes of their analysis, it all centered on the Hillary vs. Barrack showdown. But if CNN were critiquing this debate on its merits, as it should be doing, Biden clearly outdistanced his opponents on almost every issue, starting with his unequivocal threat to cut off aid to Pakistan if they didn’t hold fair and free elections, threatening to impeach George Bush if he drags this country into a war with Iran, and articulating, clearly, his guidelines for a choosing a Supreme Court nominee.
Yet, Biden continues to be mere window dressing on these debate platforms, some of his sound bites, like his humorous one word answer a few debates ago, might make great YouTube material, but he’s not being taken seriously as a candidate by most news organizations. So what chance do underfinanced candidates like Biden, and Chris Dodd really have when no one reports their words of wisdom?
Although Biden was joking when he said early on in the debate that ``I'm not criticizing any of the three people [Clinton, Obama, Edwards] who are always the ones that get to talk all of the time.", it was the Delaware senator's coy way of letting CNN know there are more voices on the stage than just the Three Amigos.
-Bill Lucey
billlucey@bellsouth.net
Clinton, much like her opponents, never got around to offering clear answers, but she did establish herself as a combative candidate, who wasn’t about to stay at the bottom of the pile after her lifeless performance in Philadelphia.
There will be plenty of Friday morning quarterbacking today, what each candidate did right or wrong; but clearly one of the costliest fumbles of the night is when Obama couldn’t give a simple ``yes’’ or`` no’’ answer whether illegal immigrants should have drivers licenses, the very issue that sent Hillary spiraling to the canvas for being so evasive during the last debate.
Obama gave a long tortuous answer that sort of suggested he supported it; then he bobbed and weaved, and then it appeared like he was tilting the other way, before CNN's Wolf Blitzer pressed him for a yes or no answer. When it came to Clinton’s turn--she gave a simple, stress-free one word, ``no’’, which was helped, in part, by Gov Eliot Spitzer decision to drop his controversial license plan ; nonetheless, the exchange helped the New York senator regain her footing, her confidence picked up, and it was her chief combatants: Obama and Edwards who found themselves back on their heels, and wondering how they let Clinton off the hook.
The biggest loser in this debate, I thought, was Blitzer’s inability to control the candidates long-winded reply’s without answering the questions. The CNN host repeatedly let the Democratic candidates turn their answers into miniature pep rallies, as they pandered to the crowd’s passions. Time and again, whether it was Edwards being asked to defend his support of a trade bill with China, Clinton’s views on merit raises for teachers, Gov Richardson’s not clearly answering whether human rights was more important than America’s national security—all the candidates, with the exception of Joe Biden, kept rambling like energized bunnies, and never really answered the questions posed to them. Blitzer, along with Campbell Brown and John Roberts, let the candidates treat the debate as if it was just another stump speech. The moderator should have threatened to silence the mikes on any candidate who refused to answer questions, or who wandered off course.
It was interesting to note in CNN’s post-debate coverage, with Anderson Cooper, David Gergen, James Carville, J.C. Watts, et al, Biden’s name wasn’t mentioned within the first 10 minutes of their analysis, it all centered on the Hillary vs. Barrack showdown. But if CNN were critiquing this debate on its merits, as it should be doing, Biden clearly outdistanced his opponents on almost every issue, starting with his unequivocal threat to cut off aid to Pakistan if they didn’t hold fair and free elections, threatening to impeach George Bush if he drags this country into a war with Iran, and articulating, clearly, his guidelines for a choosing a Supreme Court nominee.
Yet, Biden continues to be mere window dressing on these debate platforms, some of his sound bites, like his humorous one word answer a few debates ago, might make great YouTube material, but he’s not being taken seriously as a candidate by most news organizations. So what chance do underfinanced candidates like Biden, and Chris Dodd really have when no one reports their words of wisdom?
Although Biden was joking when he said early on in the debate that ``I'm not criticizing any of the three people [Clinton, Obama, Edwards] who are always the ones that get to talk all of the time.", it was the Delaware senator's coy way of letting CNN know there are more voices on the stage than just the Three Amigos.
-Bill Lucey
billlucey@bellsouth.net
Comments