Obama, Edwards Progress Forward; Clinton Holds Own

Posted: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:00 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
As I noted in a previous post, the three front-runners did nothing to lose their slot in the top tier. More importantly, no one else on stage made the case to get into the first tier. Now, the format may have hurt Dodd, Biden and Richardson since none got the amount of time that Clinton, Obama and Edwards received.

Most improved performer: Clearly Obama. He seemed much more at ease answering 60 second questions than he was during the first debate. There are still times when he "ums" too much which can give the viewer the sense that he's meandering, but that's a style point. He was clearly at ease and more comfortable than last month and looked and sounded as presidential as anyone on stage.

Strong Performer: John Edwards seemed very engaged and clearly carved out opportunities to engage Clinton and Obama. The press coverage will reflect this which the Edwards campaign will see as a victory. Bottom line, it was Edwards best debate performance to date (and I'm counting the one from this year and the ones from 2003-4).

As for Clinton, she was good tonight but not quite as impressive as she was in the first debate. She didn't shake either Obama or Edwards. She is very good at not taking the bait but sometimes one wishes she would directly engage one of her first tier rivals. BTW, I was surprised at how much she references her husband's administration. She did it quite a bit.

The rest: Gravel was much more well-behaved. Kucinich wasn't a rabble-rouser either. Biden showed the most emotion (on the Darfur question) but he yelled and dial-testers never like yelling. Dodd is doing a great job at keeping his cool. Because the guy knows every issue up and down, that's crystal clear, but he gets very little chance to chime in. My only criticism of both Dodd and Biden: they speak in Senator-ease a tad too much. Richardson also tried to distinguish himself but seemed to fail to grab any moments.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I agree with your summary overall Chuck, except I think Hillary looked the most presidential. She is very impressive: one cool customer.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:47 PM)

This field did not look as impressive as it did in the last debate. Hillary was wooden and xanaxed into serenity. Edwards came across more a pol than he has in the past,parsing and playing to the crowd. Kind of an updated Slick Willie without the ornery glint in his eye. Obama finally looked "presidential." If we want a Chaplain-in Chief, he's the guy. Who knows, maybe a non-sectarian national prayer meeting would restore the American soul. What do we have to lose?

Mark Thieme (Sent Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:55 PM)

BTW.Senator Clinton was not the one that brought up Bill Clinton. I did notice that she did look very proud of him while he was being sent "around the world" by the hopeful contenders. She was very good tonight, very Presidential.

H P Boston (Sent Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:55 PM)

What is a dial tester?

Russell in Maryland (Sent Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:43 PM)

I agree pretty much up and down. I think you also have to consider the audiences, Edwards more forceful performance will play better among New Hampshire and Iowa activists, while Hillary and Obama's safer performances seemed to be geared toward the national media and less engaged undecideds nationally.

AJ, Boston MA (Sent Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:56 PM)

I felt that Obama won the first hour with his retort to Edwards on being against the war from the beginning and Hillary's slip (in the minds of many Dem primary voters) in saying that we're safer now than before 9/11 (despite Iraq). In the second half, Hillary came on strong, but much of it dealt with comparisons to how the Clinton Administration was better than GWB (e.g., balanced budget, diplomacy). That will work with a lot of Dem primary voters, but I'm not personally comfortable with a continuation of the Bush-Clinton double dynasty.

PBS, Chicago (Sent Monday, June 04, 2007 12:24 AM)

I disagree about Joe Biden. Although I support Obama, I think Biden did really well tonight. His experience and knowledge was clearly evident. I think we all need some one to yell right now, we should be angry about the mess we are in!

Cait Wallace (Sent Monday, June 04, 2007 12:34 AM)

Anyone read Arianna Huffington's latest article on Hillarty? Now I am NOT a fan of Huffington’s, but I still read her “stuff”, she will defend any liberal anytime, anywhere. If Huffington can’t get behind a liberal, then they must really suck. Hillarty just can’t keep track of all of her lies. I hope she gets the Democratic/ Socialist nomination.

Rick, Germany (Sent Monday, June 04, 2007 6:31 AM)

Hillary and Obama both were great. Wolf blitzer drove me crazy, constantly trying to get them to fight with one another and asking those inane hypothetical questions.

Susan, Miami (Sent Monday, June 04, 2007 8:11 AM)

if you don't want to see rudy guliani and steve forbes in the whitehouse pursuing the 2 class society that they lust after, nominate edwards he is the only dem that can win the general election

MK,MO (Sent Monday, June 04, 2007 8:53 AM)

I like both Hillary and Obama but I think that Hillary should be our next President, she showed us that she has the knowlege and strangth to go head to head with the republicans. I like the way she used her husband, it showed me that she is smart and brave. He had his issues but you can't denine that he was a great prisdent and leader. I think that it shows them as being good leaders and have the same goal. Just because her husband was a great president, why should that mean that she can't lead. Are we in the 21 centrey or are we in the 50's. They should be proud of each other. Hillary is smart, strong, compassionate, and knows how to use the White House and all the power that comes with it to get the will of the people done. I would love to see a ticket that has Hillary and Obama. Then after those eight years Obama can take it from there. With eight years of Vice President work under his belt he will be unbeatable. I'd vote for me then not now

Khrista Blackwell, Baltimore Maryland (Sent Monday, June 04, 2007 9:35 AM)

As a Republican watching the debates was great fun. Edwards was truly biting and I think it will only come back to bite him in the butt. Obama and Hillary were alright, I never have liked her but I thought she commanded the stage better than anyone else. Senator Biden was fantastic, why you guys don't support him more in the blogs is amazing to me. He is brilliant and while I disagree with his ideology I recognize some one who is genuine and much smarter than the rest of your crowd. He is a gentleman and a statesman, just what the south likes and smart enough to impress the elite northeast. I hope he is apart of whomever's cabinet, republican or democrat!!! BTW, the format was terrible and the constant chatter was distracting. I thought CNN did a really bad job with this debate. Let's send it back MSNBC, they were much better.

L. Neri (Sent Monday, June 04, 2007 10:09 AM)

The top three are still the top three. Maybe for good reason. Seemed to me that Edwards took more shots at Clinton...but I don't think it came off all that well...seemed desperate. I think the biggest looser tonight was Richardson. Didn't seem presidential at all...and not all that smart. I thought I liked him...but the debate showed me he was not ready for primetime. Boycott the olympics? Stupid idea. I think the second looser was Edwards, because I don't think he made up any ground and will still be behind Hillary and Obama. Biden was great...but the money says he just can't be elected. It's really too bad that all of these candidates will hang on until February 5th. It would be nice to see a debate with the top three alone. That might give them all enough air time for us to make a truly informed choice.

Al, KS (Sent Monday, June 04, 2007 10:27 AM)

Edwards: According to Luntz the NH focus group he used said that Edwards won, more importantly he won over undecideds. Obama has serious demographic problems winning in eiher Iowa or New Hampshire. And he really didn't do anything but put down Edwards with a cheap shot. Edwards started to vote against the war in 2003 with the 87 billion bill. Obama must defeat and attack Hillary and quickly because they are both relying on liberal voters. They have limited appeal among moderates. Two liberal based candiadates cannot survive long drawing on the same voters. Edwards is reliant on moderates and conservative dems.

Dan, tucson, Az (Sent Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:17 PM)

It is accurate that finding reliable documentation on this topic can be time consuming.

Tucson WiFi,Tucson Broadband Internet, Tucson Hotspots (Sent Sunday, November 25, 2007 11:19 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=212199