Some Quick Post-game Take-aways

Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:19 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
Some quick thoughts before the morning (it's going to be a LOOONNNGGG night).

Clinton seemed a bit testy tonight, particularly on Social Security... She allowed her "laughter" tick to kick in for a few questions, particularly on the various criticisms other candidates made in press releases that those same candidates didn't have the, well, you know, to verbalize those attacks.

Overall, though, no one landed a blow on her and at this point in the game, that's how these debates have to be judged. As my colleague Mark Murray put it in the control room tonight, she reminds him of Dean Smith in that she's always playing "four corners" or "stall ball." This is what a frontrunner gets to do, protect a lead and Clinton appears to be protecting her lead. BTW, she continues to show command on the stage; it's subtle things but there's no doubting who's in charge of this campaign right now, it's Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps the surprising thing to me was Obama's decision to not overtly go after Clinton. He didn't seem to change his tone or game even as it appears he's stalled both in the national polls and in this state of New Hampshire. Of the candidates chasing Clinton, Edwards stood out to me. He seemed to realize he needed to prove contrast with Clinton on just about every answer he gave. It was one of his better performances. The guy is getting his William Jennings Bryan schtick down pat. How will he get past Obama, that's the problem for him.

As for the second half of the field, Biden, once again, did well. The guy just needs resources and he just might get some traction. Then again, maybe it's just us Beltway types who think he's shooting straighter from the hip than any of the other candidates. Of course, when you've got nothing left in the bank, you got nothing left to lose. At a minimum, I think he's earned a spot on the VP short list, forget Sec./State.

Dodd seemed a bit better tonight but just can't seem to stop from speaking like a senator and that hurts him at these debates.

Then there's Richardson. What is there to say; I think he's getting smaller and smaller at these debates. He's trying too hard on some questions and it shows. I'll have more thoughts tomorrow.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think Tim Russert is trying too hard to put Hillary on the spot and is failing somewhat. I am absolutely amazed at the response to the trick terrorism question that Tim raised and then tried to stump Hillary by saying the quote was that of Bill Clinton. She had the best one liner of the debate with her answer. She is the best qualified of the lot - hands down! It almost seems like she is getting tag teamed by Edwards and the rest on the one hand and Tim Russert on the other.

Vikram, Ellicott City, MD (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:12 PM)

Got to love that Hillary. hillaryclinton.com

Mark West. Raleigh, N.C. (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:12 PM)

Chuck:

How many times can BR give the same speech on immigration and the moderators will pretend that's the first time they've heard it?

Don't "journalists" like yourself have a responsibility to call people like BR on their misleading statements?

LonewackoDotCom, L.A. CA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:17 PM)

Obama did go after clinton but, no follow up. I heard he was sick with a bad cold and still did better than Ms. duck the questions did.

diane (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:17 PM)

It is a complete cop out for NBC political director Chuck Todd and the rest of the MSM to declare Hillary the winner because she is still leading the polls after the debate. Based on this criteria, H.R. Clinton cannot lose, because she ducks the questions and plays it safe. You are letting her get off easy, not that you should be doing B. Obama's job. What are you being paid to do? I ask, who--if they were tied going in--would come out the winner, and who answered the questions the best.

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:18 PM)

Not one mention of Kucinich?
What are you afraid of?
Not for profit healthcare?
Peace?
Integrity?

Robyn, Las Vegas, Nevada (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:19 PM)

I am very tired of politicians refusing to answer the “hypothetical” questions; of course as a citizen I have the RIGHT to know what my would-be-President might do in any manner of theoretical situations. What would you do if confronted with a recession? What would you do if there is another attack? What would you do if there is another catastrophic natural disaster? Are all of these questions beyond your ability to imagine or are they just too difficult?

Student Voter, Tampa FL (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:30 PM)

Edwards has really stepped up over the last two months. You are right, he realizes that he has to accentuate the differences between him and the other Democrats. There is no doubt that he is a juxtoposition to all the Republicans, that's why poll after poll show him beating every Republican in the field. He can't face them without the nomination; so I foresee greater transparency which will highlight how he has evolved into a presidential candidate totally different from any we have seen in at least 30 years ... maybe 50.

Chuck Malone (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:30 PM)

Just another night on the campaign trail and Hillary scores another "win". Now batting 1,000 ! hillaryclinton.com

Samantha Caldwell, Andrews, N.C. (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:30 PM)

You need to start paying attention to your own online polls. You might a thing or two.

P Brown, OKC, OK (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:32 PM)

Good night America, just remember to go to . hillaryclinton.com

Chelse C. ,New York, New York (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:32 PM)

Biden was very strong once again!

Atl, GA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:33 PM)

Everyone one knows including you...he came in sick. Give the guy a break. At least he didn't avoid answers.

The front runner mantle is going to be a noose around her neck. You guys have her thinking she doesn't have to answer questions and that is OK. Keep it up

Gray, DC (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:34 PM)

Even though I'm not a huge Hillary fan, I thought she did quite well tonight even though she seemed to be targeted by Tim Russert (was Chris Matthews writing the questions?) Even when she was "sandbagged" by that previous quote of "William Jefferson Clinton's". She recovered well and incredibily fast by saying, "Well, he's not standing here tonight". LOL Kucinich, Biden, and even Edwards went way up in my book. As for Obama not "going after Clinton", maybe he really IS trying to clean up the political process. How refreshing!

Patty (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:35 PM)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Dodd did better. I used to think Richardson could break into the top tier, but I think he's the perfect Sec'y of State. I think he had the best answer on Iran, though.

Obama Supporter, Maine (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:36 PM)

How can you call stall in the poll when 55% of people didn't have a choice.

Tom, DC (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:36 PM)

You are so wrong on Richardson. He's the only one of Obama, Clinton and Edwards that gets it on Iraq. Do you think any Dem wants to see our troops in Iraq until 2013? They don't deserve to be President if they can't deliver on the most important issue of the campaign.

Stephen Cassidy, CA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:36 PM)

Mr. Todd,

Mr. Edwards is clearly not following a "schtick." Unlike the smarmy media (who have crowned Clinton and keep trying to sell the decision) Mr. Edwards is answering forthrightly, with substance, and integrity. His answers weren't overly rehearsed. They didn't need to be. He and Obama know what they think and can answer without spinning or manipulating.

Lane Kelemen (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:38 PM)

I have never been a Tim Russert fan, but he was a winner tonight. For the first time someone held Hillary's feet to the fire. I don't think the torture question was a trick. She doesn't get it both ways. She referenced Bill's presidency several times when she thought it would benefit her in a Bill friendly crowd. Everything he did was not above reproach. Clearly the rumors about Obama being sick were true because I have never seen him so quiet. John Edwards was John Edwards. The winner of this debate was Tim Russert. Finally a journalist who forced every candidate to stand by their statements.

RealB.G. (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:41 PM)

Sen Biden was the most impressive to me, followed by Sen Edwards then Sen Clinton. I thought Russert seemed to be especially hard on Sen Clinton, bringing up quote her husband had made. But I think it backfired on Russert, because she handled it well.

Still undecided, but think Dems have good field to choose from.

Dot, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:55 PM)

Thought Hillary's performance was very poor. Partly because I disagree with her over 50% of the time.

She is such a hawk she should go back to the party of her college days, Republican. It would be a better fit, I expect fundraising scandels from Republican, not Democrats.

She just voted to move towards war with Iran!
And she condoned Israel's bombing of Syria's civilian nuclear facility built by France... she seems to be a puppet for the Israeli lobby... God help us!

If you want peace instead of war, anybody but Hillary!

Reggie, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:57 PM)

Edwards won by a mile.

Will, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:59 PM)

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

Who do you believe won the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate? -------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=597

PollM (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:01 AM)

"no one landed a blow on her"

Many did. Especially Biden, who said she would be unable to work with Republicans enough to get anything done.

And she laughed about voting for the pre war with Iran bill.

Reggie, Seattle (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:01 AM)

Biden and Dodd did very well. Both came across as experienced and as candidates who were interested in their country, not themselves. I'd pick Biden at this point in time.

Mom, Monroe, CT (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:02 AM)

If Clinton doesn't want to answer questions, the debate moderators should simply ignore her until she's ready. We're into the second term of a President who acts in such a manner. How about someone who's unafraid of a little transparency???

Judy Raddue, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:07 AM)

Edwards hit Hillary and hit her hard. Obama need to sling some mud otherwise he'll get passed by Edwards and Richardson and Biden will be those "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" people. Edwards hit a home run tonight as he was on point, poised, and professional. Edwards really impressed me and has my vote locked.

Daniel (Lafayette, CA) (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:09 AM)

I believe that the question regarding torture WAS a "sandbag" question asked of Hillary by Tim Russert. In general, I think hypothetical questions are dangerous because prior to an event actually happening, you NEVER know exactly what ALL the circumstances are going to be at a particular time and, therefore, you can't possibly know what you would do with any degree of accuracy. You might know today what you would WANT to do, but that isn't the same thing. Anyone who says different is blowing smoke!

Patty, San Diego, CA (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:11 AM)

Tim Russert practiced "gotcha" journalism. He is more interested in getting headlines to give people reasons not to vote for a candidate rather than try to get nuanced responses that show why we should vote for a candidate. If candidates feel they need to dodge the questions I don't blame them.

nuanced (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:18 AM)

I think it's ridiculous that you can take your talking point that Hillary won this debate by not losing from Pat Buchannon. Without a doubt this was John Edwards debate. Not only did it begin the inevetible process of moving him into direct contention with Hillary (It seems pretty obvious to me that Obama has been promised the VP slot on a Hillary ticket, He's acting exactly the same way Edwards acted last time around)

Edwards performance tonight also came at a time when the SEIU endorsement is ever so close. Which will be huge in the great state of Nevada where a new caucus will be won by organization.

It also seems funny to me the comment about the democratic institution not liking Edwards, I personally think that he was speaking of the media conglomerates that know Clinton on the ticket will drive news ratings through the roof.

Chris Mathers, Savannah, GA (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:23 AM)

Chuck,
Robyn from Las Vegas is right--shame on you. No mention of Kucinich, the guy with integrity who's consistently been right on Iraq and just about everything else.
But you and your superiors in the MSM don't want him and Gravel to get any attention. (Oh yeah, the excuse--they're not 'major', as in 'big money' candidates.) As Robyn said, what are you afraid of?

Fred, Syracuse, NY (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:24 AM)

Tim Russert really likes those "gotcha" moments.
I think Senator Clinton stood her ground and showed real leadership. She is sure of herself and who she is, and has an extraordinary grasp of the issues.
Obama was flat, and Edwards showed no class in trying to attack Senator Clinton.

Katie Osage (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:24 AM)

Okay, I admit it--- I'm an Edwards supporter. But for the first time tonight I think he put his best foot forward in a debate. He was much more specific and gave much more detail in his answers than the other candidates. The man has a real brain and he's not afraid to show it. His best moment--- when he pointed out that Hillary voted today to support the preliminaries to war with Iran---- giving the President just the kind of support she did before the war with Iraq. What WAS she thinking? And thanks to Edwards performance tonight there will be some publicity about it.

Susan, Osterville, Massachusetts (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:28 AM)

Barack Obama has the class to stay above the fray, the honesty to answer questions that are posed to him, and most importantly, he can actually win a general election. Hillary is going to lose the general if nominated, and just because of the "vast right-wing conspiracy." She will lose because democrats and independents flatly do not trust her.

People are just now beginning to realize that, as her lead in the national polls is beginning to diminish (see realclearpolitics.com).

Tom S (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:30 AM)

As a life long Republican, I am more and more coming to the place where I think I may hold my nose and vote for Mrs. Clinton. If it becomes a choice between say Rudy & Hillary, why choose Rudy? If we are going to end up with a Democrat anyway, I might as well vote for a real life long Democrat instead of a RINO like Rudy!

Richard G. Los Angeles, CA (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:31 AM)

The idea of the Democrats raising payroll taxes for Social Security is a deadly political idea. They need to stick with policy of fiscal responsibility, cutting spending and growing the economy. GDP is everything and makes it possible for all in the private and government sectors. Senator Clinton mentioned the Bill Clinton years as a measure of fiscal responsibly but it was the Contract with America Republicans that kept him honest, in addition we were all heavy tax but the technology bubble in the late 90's help offset the regressive taxes by growing the economy GDP. Bill Richardson's assumptions are correct in solving the Social Security issue we must balance the budget and grow the GDP. All very possible, especially growing our GDP and is projected to grow from 2.0 (2007) to 2.6 (2008). Remember the payroll taxes are the most regressive form of taxes. The Democrat again, run the risk of being labeled too liberal and will raise taxes to solve any problems first. This will lead to defeat or no reform mandate at best.

threeriverscrossing, Raleigh, North Carolina (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:31 AM)

Yeah...saw the report earlier today from the local station in New Hampshire, his wife Michelle said he was sick but would still attend the debate.

Chima, York, PA (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:31 AM)

Russert's hypothetical questions (he keeps using the torture one) are silly. We're living in the era of suicide bombers, and he thinks a zealot like that would give in to a "beating"? In the Middle Ages, religious zealots allowed themselves to be burned at the stake rather than repudiate their beliefs. Take it from John McCain: torture doesn't work on a practical level. It's also ignoble. A willingness to use it puts American soldiers at risk of torture. As for the hypothetical Israel question, HC was right to mock its wording: "if Israel feels that it's in danger..." Does that mean "the Israeli government"? What if a "feeling" of this sort were sheer paranoia? What if a significant proportion of Israeli citizens oppose any warlike action?

That said, Hillary is my least favorite. Chris Matthews is right: her strategy is to avoid alienating anyone, so she refuses to say anything brave or principled or risky. I like Dodd and Biden, who have more legislative experience than she does. I like Edwards and Obama. I agree with most of what Kucinich has to say, and he's clearly the wittiest. And Russert did ask Gravel a great question--how to stop the war--and Gravel gave a fine answer.

Carol Hamilton, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:32 AM)

Anyone who considers John Edwards to be a viable presidential candidate is falling into the 2004 trap, where Kerry was considered "most electable". Polls showing a 5% lead against the competition don't mean anything when there have been no attacks against you. Clinton has been attacked, and yet has maintained her composure. She is the Democrats' best shot.

Jeremy, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:34 AM)

As an independepent who watched the debate, I thought that Sen. Biden outperformed everyone else. He was the only one with a clear plan on Iraq and showed evidence that his plan would sway Republicans (as seen by his bill which passed through the Senate). I thought that he answered questions directly, succinctly, and clearly. I also appreciated the fact that he was the only candidate to bring up Sen. Clinton's biggest drawback in a general election- namely the name Clinton and all the failures/scandals associated with it; that too, he did it in a clever way. I don't know if I will end up voting for him, but he clearly was the best candidate tonight.

Samir B, Cincinnati, OH (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:42 AM)

Hillary faltered tonight and it was about time that she was tested. She avoided answering the Iran attack (by Israel) question and was totally in denial about the Social Security crisis. As far as not revealing names of donors to the Clinton Foundation, well big surprise, that was an avoidance as well. Obama (my man) did not do what I would have liked him to do, which is to strongly differentiate himself from Hillary. The talking heads said that he was sick (and truly he did not seem in his best form) but this nice guy strategy will not win the nomination for him. Maybe this is part of his 'new politics' but there is a genteel way of debating, yet still strongly expressing your opinion and it is an art. Not attacking Hillary personally is one thing but it is important to identify her bad judgment (on Iraq) and to clearly distinguish himself from her. Where he really missed his opportunity was when he failed to criticize her support for the Lieberman/Kyle resolution but Edwards (who performed admirably - and won the debate in my opinion) jumped right in and commented that she did not seem to learn her lesson from the 2002 vote (fiasco) to authorize the president to use force in Iraq. I thought that this was key. Biden gave his usual solid performance but I think that his non-binding resolution to federalize Iraq is symbolic and really of no value since this decision is an internal Iraqi affair and not our policy to make; although maybe I am being naive, since the colonial ruler does have the last word. For me the debate succeeded in knocking Hillary off of her inevitability horse but I was disappointed in Barack. Although I know that I'm not voting for the captain of the debate team, I would have liked Obama to have been more aggressive in defining himself. Still, for me it's about stopping the Hillary-establishment campaign. I do want to change the way that Washington does its politics, if that is possible.

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:52 AM)

Mr. Todd, why are you so continually shocked when Obama doesn't stoop to bashing his opponents? Are you deaf? Isn't that the exact opposite of Obama's campaign platform?

But you don't care about that. Cable media these days is more narrative than objectivity, and you seem to at every turn want Obama to indulge in the divisive politics of blindly bashing your opponent over stupid, pointless things. Sorry, he's not going to do that. You are thinking Obama is going to act and be like every other politician out there, and that is where your analysis fails you. That's why his grassroots campaign is so strong and that's how he's going to pull out a "shocker" in Iowa, which won't be a shocker to anybody who understood Obama's point: politicians and the media, YOU are the problem.

Even if it means he loses, he still isn't going negative. It's about more than winning an election, and that's what you are failing to understand.

Abe, Dayton, Ohio (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:01 AM)

I'm really surprised you didn't mention Dennis Kucinich even *once* in this story. But then, you did leave him in the picture so that's one up on ABC. Kucinich did a great job standing for what America ought to be, as usual. I particularly thought his commitment to ending the war sooner rather than later showed his resolve and leadership.

Gretchen, Houston TX (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:11 AM)

Did anyone watch the Democrat debates Tonight?
I didn&#8217;t&#8230; it&#8217;s still too big of herd for me.
I was just wondering, impressions? Opinions?
Who Won?
Anyone?
Share This
...

CTron (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:13 AM)

If Hillary thought her feet was held to the fire tonight, wait till she goes one on one with the GOP candidate. She will beg for Ice water by the end of the debate.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:15 AM)

I look at the debates tonight. I think that what I want in a president is intelligence, calmness under pressure and a person
who is an unites people. America elect George Bush.
He is a reflection of us. So is our Congress.
Very dysfunction. I am in my sixies and a physician
for thirty five years. I am looking for someone
I am originally from Indiana and conservative.
It appears to me that Senator Obama is a one in
a generation candidate. Steady.

Louis Simpson, MD Indianapolis, Indiana (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:32 AM)

Governor Richardson was right on point in the debate. He made it clear that if you are serious about the ending the war, the rhetoric must end and the future president must bring everyone home. NO TROOPS LEFT BEHIND! There cannot be a military solution and the so-called "big three" don't get it.

Tim Johnson (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:37 AM)

I won't get off my couch to vote for any of these candidates except Kucinich. Kucinich is the only serious candidate in the field because he has taken well considered stands on all the important issues; the other candidates are only trying to convince us to take them seriously.

If the DLC selects another candidate - I fully intend to write in the name "Kucinich".

Kathleen Bushman (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:47 AM)

No mention of Kucinich. Americans want a health care system with patients, not corporations coming first.

Ryan Miami, FL (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:47 AM)

Hillary Clinton wins again: Tonight, I was more impressed with Edwards than during the last debate. Conversely, Obama was weak. He is long on rhetoric and short on substance. He is an inspirational speaker with nice ideas, but he is not ready to lead. Give him 8 more years to grow. Hillary, however, demonstrated that she is the most prepared to be President. She has the experience and knowledge to work within the system to affect change. She does not give fantasy-land, "feel good" answers; she provides meaningful responses that show thorough consideration of the issues. I trust Hillary to do the job right!

Jody Willson Palmer, San Francisco, California (Sent Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:58 AM)

Next >>

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=381964