« Demoing MT for Norris Dickard | Main | Introducing photo.spotlight »
January 23, 2004
The Dems Duke It Out One Last Time in New Hampshire
Last night's debate in New Hampshire gave TV viewers one last chance to see the Democratic presidential candidates collectively strut their stuff before this Tuesday's Granite State primary. For those folks hoping to see a no-holds-barred rhetorical wrestling match, no dice -- the candidates were generally cordial to each other, saving their best barbs for President Bush.
In the hour and forty-five minutes of the debate they showed on Fox News -- the remainder of the debate was given exclusively to ABC's Nightline, well past my typical bedtime on a school night -- each candidate did their best to convince the New Hampshire voters that they've got the right blend of smarts, experience, gumption and mojo to take down Bush in November.
John Kerry, clearly jazzed by his rather unexpected triumph in Iowa, appeared quite "presidential" throughout the debate, handling questions with relative ease. All he had to do to keep his 1st place status was to not muck anything up during the debate, and by that particular standard he did just fine. (I mean, can you picture him accidentally losing it and giving a rebel yell to the audience like Dean did on Monday? Now that would have been must-see-TV....)
I paid particular attention to John Edwards -- largely because I'd basically written off the guy until Iowa's results came pouring in -- and was impressed with his well-honed prosecutor's ability to turn around any question and use it to make whatever point he wished to make, whether or not his answer had anything to do with the original question. For example, when Edwards was asked a question about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he quickly dismissed the idea, but then used the remainder of his time to criticize the lack of debate over policies that could improve the lives of people living in poverty:
I wonder if I could just step back for a minute. There's been an enormous amount of discussion in the first hour, hour-and-a-half of this debate, about us, about ourselves. You know, if we could just take a minute and talk about what's actually happening in the country. For example, there's been no discussion about 35 million Americans who live in poverty every single day. Millions of Americans who work full-time for minimum wage and live in poverty. We have, in a country of our wealth -- if you'll let me finish -- in a country of our wealth and prosperity, we have children going to bed hungry. We have children who don't have the clothes to keep them warm. And I understand that maybe on some poll, that may not be a big issue, but the truth is, it's important. This is what -- we should talk about it and do something about it, because it's wrong.
It's too bad, though, that Edwards wasn't able to offer much of an answer when asked by Peter Jennings what he knew about Islam and how he would use this knowledge to improve relations with the Islamic world. I supposed it's the sort of question that would have stumped everyone on that stage, which in itself is really unfortunate. It wouldn't take a huge amount of time, for example, for the candidates to get a quick primer on the Five Pillars of Islam, or on Islam's emphasis on social justice. Given how much of our foreign policy is directly focused on what's going on in Islamic countries, it's amazing that our political leaders don't know very much about the faith. Perhaps Jennings' question will be just the right excuse to compel the candidates sit down with an imam -- or even just a Muslim campaign volunteer -- so they won't be so Islam illiterate the next time around.
Joe Lieberman was quite strong in the debate, I thought; even though he's been too much of a hawk for my own personal taste, I thought he made a rational, but moving argument for his position on the Iraq war. Considering he's polling in the single digits, he came across as very confident, and he avoided laughing at his own jokes before delivering the punchline, which has always bugged me in the past.
Howard Dean was pretty mellow for the most part, clearly pulling his punches compared to previous debates. He made an effort to temper his tone, but ended up redirecting his energy into the speed of his words -- which occasionally made it hard to understand what he was saying. It's almost like the good doctor is carbonated: the more he bottles it up, the faster it shoots out of him.
Wes Clark: I like Clark a lot, but man, he's got to work on his forensic skills. For example, when asked about Michael Moore calling Bush a "deserter" at one of his campaign events, Clark should have distanced himself from the comments, but instead said, "I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot." By saying he's "seen the charge" before rather than dismissing it, he's turned it into a news story. He'll now have to put up with headlines saying "Clark Refuses to Distance Himself From Michael Moore's Deserter Comments" rather than stories talking about the substance of his comments. To top it all off, it didn't help Clark when he boasted, "I am delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, of a great American leader like Senator George McGovern, and of people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and former Secretary of the Navy John Dalton." To most Americans, this translates as, "Support me because I have support from the Bowling for Columbine Guy, a liberal Democrat who got trounced by Nixon 30 years ago, and two people you've probably never heard of." I just can't imagine many people sitting up and taking notice when he rattled off this C-List who's who of endorsements.
Anyway, enough on the debate. Onward to Tuesday.... -ac
Posted by acarvin at January 23, 2004 2:03 PM
Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article
