Dem Debate: Winner, Clinton; Loser, Richardson
by Ryan Sager
Sun, 3 Jun 2007 at 11:28 PM
updated Sun, 3 Jun 2007 at 11:29 PM
Here's a little secret that drama-craving political reporters are reluctant to let you in on: Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party for president in 2008 (barring an unforeseen entry into the race by Al Gore or Martin Sheen).
OK, I've got no crystal ball. But I do have polls showing her nearly doubling the numbers of her closest rival, Senator Obama of Illinois (who peaked way too early). And I do know that John Edwards has the most grating personality this side of Joel Osteen.
The question, therefore, isn't how the candidates did in relation to the primary at tonight's CNN-sponsored Democratic debate. It's how they did in relation to the general election. The short answer, then, is that Mrs. Clinton did fabulously and Bill Richardson hurt his chances of getting on the ticket.
Despite some heated exchanges, the fact is that nothing happened last night that will alter the overall dynamic of the Democratic race — which is good news for Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Obama came off quite well, as he usually does, sounding confident and commanding (I won't say "articulate," even though he was ... far more so than, say, Messrs. Edwards and Richardson).
Mr. Edwards came out swinging, but mostly punched air (and he got hit by the toughest line of the night, delivered by Mr. Obama: "John, I think the fact is I opposed this war from the start, so you're about four-and-a-half years late on leadership on this issue.").
So, again, Mrs. Clinton won. Not only did she rise above her rivals by repeatedly stressing their similarities and focusing her attacks on the opposing party and president (a trick Rudy Giuliani has been using to some great effect recently), she positioned herself properly for the general election, forcefully rejecting Mr. Edwards's characterization of the War on Terror as a "bumper sticker" and crediting the Bush administration for having made us safer than we were on 9/11 (though still not safe enough).
In short, Mrs. Clinton was poised, on message, and even funny (even getting off a funny line about how sending Dick Cheney to foreign countries was the opposite of diplomacy).
So, Mr. Richardson ... why focus on him as the loser of this debate?
Well, I've had a pet theory for a while that he might be the best possible VP candidate to help the Democratic Party in the West, where the Democrats have some great opportunities this election cycle. In this debate, Mr. Richardson just proved he's not ready for prime time.
While I've actually got a soft spot for Mr. Richardson, between his legalization of medical marijuana and his lowering of taxes in New Mexico (he even called for a balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto in tonight's debate!), he just doesn't have what it takes for the national stage. He talks endlessly about his resume (hackish in and of itself), but he comes across as very green. His answers were all over the place and only occasionally seemed to bear any relationship to the question he'd been asked. At one point, he said we could lower gas prices by allowing states to investigate oil companies for price gouging; asked if he thought the oil companies were price gouging, he said no. Let me ask: What? He also seemed to have a pretty hard time explaining why we should allow a genocide in Iraq while getting ourselves involved in trying to stop a genocide in Darfur (not an easy position to explain, for sure).
As for the rest of the field ... well, that's why they're called "the rest of the field."
Dennis Kucinich seemed to get more screentime than Johnny Depp in the latest "Pirates" movie. Chris Dodd might as well have not shown up (he's sort of the Jim Gilmore of the Democratic race). Joe Biden yelled a lot. Mike Gravel could have beaten John McCain in a cranky-old-man-off.
And we get to do it all again, on CNN, with the Republican candidates Tuesday night.
Related Topics: Dem Primary
Latest Politics Homepage
|
Print
Send
RSS
