So, let’s get the big question out of the way right up top: Strongest performance came from former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. A close second was Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd. Following equally close in third was Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.
Edwards did well for himself on several occasions. The one that stood out to me most was when he discussed his vote on the Iraq war and how he learned from his mistakes. (By the way, he owes a big head nod to former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel for bringing up today’s Senate resolution regarding Iran.) He scored points here for not only once again announcing to the world that he made a mistake, but for pointing out that the mistake had bettered him — that is, that he now understands the Bush Administration cannot be handed the trust of the American people or of the Congress.
Dodd was overall intelligent, sharp, comfortable and genuine. He did well by being himself and being comfortable in his own skin. His answers on Social Security — even if his statements were later mis-quoted by others in the debate — and on Chinese imports were good moments. If he had a down-beat during the night it was that he refused to follow-through on his own previous comments about why Republicans want New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the nominee. If the answer is what I think it is, he should have said it: Of all the people standing on this stage and of all the people who stand on the stage during the Republican debates, there is only one person who has the ability to motivate the conservative base and that person is Clinton.
I would have placed Biden higher in the standings tonight except for two things. First, he didn’t rally around his own victory today in the Senate. He’s been preaching on the Iowa stump now for weeks that he’s the candidate who can bring Democrats and Republicans together and create progress. Today he was afforded a very rare real-life example and he didn’t take advantage of it as he should have. Second, there are some clear and concise differences between him and the others on that stage on more than just stances on Iraq. He needs to bring those to the front as forcefully as he has foreign policy. So long as he continues to preach only on that one topic, he will continue to be equated as a candidate for secretary of state.
The weakest performances of the night belong to Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton was weak on several areas, but especially on Social Security. After so many years of the Bush Administration, the American people want clear answers. We want to know what our next leader thinks about important issues. We don’t want to hear that our next leader is just going to set a table and accept opinions.
Clinton also loses points for the “go ask my husband” answer to the Presidential Library question. As she pointed out so aptly in answer to a different question, he’s not on the stage.
Obama had some good moments. At one point he turned Clinton’s stump statement about being glad so many are now interested in health care because it’s been “a lonely road” and turned the tables. He alluded to the closed door meetings held so many years ago and said perhaps, she would have not been so lonely if she’d left the door open.
Despite that, Obama completely fumbled when he indicated he did not go to civil rights disputes in Jena because he was in Washington, D.C., casting votes on the Iraq war. He indicated that his votes on Iraq were “critical.” Even as he said it, he paused, but then continued on. He must have realized in that moment exactly what he’d done: indicated that the issues in Jena were not critical. The fumble was complete when he neglected going back and correcting himself.
You will never hear me call for the ousting of either Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Gravel from the forums or debates. Although I believe many blogs will be calling for them to no longer be a part of the process, I have always believed and continue to believe that everyone deserves a seat at the table. The problem is not with the number of candidates, but with the number of topics being discussed.
Also, I realize that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is climbing in the polls here in Iowa. For a while, he was rising on my personal presidential totem pole as well. Now, however, I’m not quite sure what I think about him. I don’t agree with his belief in the economy as a cure-all for the nation’s ills. I do like his stance on immigration, especially when he speaks about encouraging Mexico to provide for its own people. More and more, I’m not agreeing with his stance on Iraq. Inasmuch as I want this war to end, I also do not want to see my now 5-year-old son fighting over there 15 years from now.
As for the debate itself, I could have done without the “faith and politics” question — especially since Tim Russert seems to equate “faith” in America with only one sacred text. Someone should have made the evening really interesting — Gravel — by reciting the Song of Solomon right there on prime time. Another useless question was the “Sox or Yankees” stupidity. Quite frankly, I bet we have men and women serving in Iraq who dream of the day when the only thing they have to worry about is who is going to win a baseball game.
For those interested in reading more of my thoughts as well as those of some other folks, visit the liveblogs at Iowa Independent and Back Roads to the White House. Links to the blogs of those participating at Back Roads: The Media Lizzy Show, Policy Media, TJ Sullivan in LA, UI Election 2008, RealClearPolitics Politics Nation Blog and Politisite.
