The candidates take a seat, and tempers cool

It's usually harder to sustain heated arguments seated than while standing up. And that was rarely more evident than at Monday night's debate among the Democratic presidential aspirants.

The fur flew during the first part of the forum in South Carolina, when the three candidates -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards -- were on their feet, behind a podium. Obama was in the middle, literally and figuratively.

He got a lecture from Clinton about not being willing to take responsibility for his legislative record (he disagreed, of course), and took grief from both her and Edwards for offering a health-care plan that is not as far-reaching as theirs (he argued it is more realistic).

But the combatants dialed it down considerably when they settled into chairs for the debate's second half.

Obama, for instance, had a chance to ignite ...

some new sparks when he was asked to comment on author Toni Morrison's famed formulation that Bill Clinton should be viewed as America's first black president. But instead of using the occasion to revisit his complaints about the attack-dog role the now-ex-president his playing for his wife's campaign, Obama decided to first be gracious and then offer a quip.

Bill Clinton, Obama allowed, "did have enormous affinity" with African-Americans. But he added that he would need "to investigate Bill's dancing abilities before I could accurately judge whether he's a brother."

Still, it was hard not to note that as he sat on the stage, he was often tight-lipped as Hillary Clinton and Edwards spoke. Someday, perhaps, we'll learn what really was going through his mind at those moments.

A CNN debate transcript is available here.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Marks]

I didn't see the debate. The last one they had, I only heard it. I think that's the better way to hear what the candidates are saying. Stop looking at their mannerisms or faces they make.

Turn your back to the TV and just listen. I read the CNN transcript of the debate, it didn't say they sat down.

I saw a small story showing some of the faces in the debate crowd. Really serious faces, those folks were hoping to learn something.

Debates are ideas, nothing substantive and direct. Obama is trying to frame his point of view, legislation has to include both Democrats and Republicans consideration. For the betterment of America, not to just glorify the Democratic party.

Hillary wants to attack Republicans, take them on! Hillary is proud of being partisan. No one can blame her. Maybe its gender or Bill is why people are voting for her. If she was defined as partisan, most people think that's why Congress is in trouble and gridlock happens there.

Edwards is hoping South Carolina hears him and understands what he's saying. He can't lose in South Carolina, that' s home!

Bill Clinton isn't talking about Edwards as a threat to Hillary. Edwards should attack Bill to get some publicity. Quit trying to win on his looks and staying above the bickering.

[Dave]

The poster who said he listened instead of watching--I don't believe it. Wolf Blitzer said they were going to sit down, so you had to know that if you were listening.

Or maybe you missed a lot more of what was said.

[Ronald Loui]

Well, I like Dave's post. And since I also read Mr. Malcolm's extensive feedback for running a Ron Paul item, I will throw Mr. Frederick a bone: good observations about standing and being in the middle. And I too hope we will someday get to find out what Obama was really thinking! (That's not as good as the praise AM got, I know.)

Clyburn looked upset by the discord, even as the woman in his row turned to face him with enjoyment, so entertained was she by the row on stage. I now forgive him for sitting on the fence -- he clearly puts a high priority on party unity.

CNN was not shameful, but still found it necessary to run four minutes of Hillary's best oratory during the wrap-up, even though those minutes did not fit the format of their one-issue segments (e.g., Iraq, economy, race). I'm a bit upset I had to upgrade a quite recent version of Windows Media Player just to hear my countrymen debate for the Presidency. I also had to look all over the place, because I could've sworn that MSNBC claimed they were covering the debate (they were not, and they certainly weren't hosting it either). Nobody wants to help us with some links to the debates, or at least articles with times, stations, and URL's, any more?

Does anyone think we've seen too much of the young hedge fund manager lately?

Hillary showed she can attack well on her feet. Edwards showed his trial lawyer skills. Obama thought too much (does this count as "thinking on his feet"?, but did show he can be gracious, seated or standing.

The Clinton-angry-waving-finger shows are starting to make me feel like I'm being scolded by someone else's ranting parents all the time. Well, that might be part of their strategy, especially when appealing to older voters. But I feel like they are the out-of-control angry parents who are just in the habit of being abusive and lashing out, not the angry parents who actually have a good point to make.

(FYI, before these debates The Times' Campaign 08 page publishes a little debate box the day of the forum with the times and channels. And within this item of Don's now is a link to the complete debate transcript.)

[Marks]

Dave,

I totally missed the South Carolina debate on TV. Didn't see or hear a word of it. I saw news that it happened. I read the CNN transcript. I didn't read they sat down.

I completely missed the Nevada debate. Didn't read that transcript.

The New Hampshire debate, I only heard that one. My back was turned the whole time. TV is behind me, I was working on computers while they were talking.

I have things to do at debate times! There next one is in LA on the 31st. Hope it's at a time where I can watch it, but may not get to. I prefer to listen what the candidates are saying and not see how they said it.

I can listen to football games on the radio, I don't have to watch every game on TV. I listen pretty well.

[Dew]

Its well observed fact that media does not question Clintons even when they make the stupidest suggestion, they have a command on Mass Media, e.g. ABC, CNN, New York Times, Washington post etc. Most of these media have former Clinton era staffers or aids commenting as political pundits, so whenever somebody suggest that Clintons are wrong they are rebuked by former Clintonites right there. Case in point CNN has David Gergan as its analyst and he does not let anybody say anything negative about Clintons. So therefore Clintons get free ride from media.

[Demo Crat]

Everybody has, to a degree, "dirty-laundry" hidden in their closet. There is just something about Hillary Clinton I just do not care for.

There is just something about a woman, who stands by a man who claims "oral-sex" is not sex. A real "feminist" would have divorced Mr. Bill after being publicly humiliated.

Despite Mr. Bill's two-term tenure as our commander in chief, he will ALWAYS be remembered for his affair with Ms. Lewinsky. Politicians are generally known not to have integrity, sincerity or dignity. When you have "tag-team" like Bill and HIll, well one must double thier doubt.

Sling on Obama, your closet is probably much cleaner than Hill's.

[John]

There was a troubling double-standard shown by the audience of last night's debate. When Obama pointed out "mistatements" by Clinton, the audience cheered. When Clinton pointed out absolutely equal "mistatements" by Obama, the audience booed. Obama is clearly being held to a different standard. Now why is that? Do his supporters not care about the truth of his record and policy proposals? His offer to "show" proof to Clinton and Edwards is disingenuous and tactical. It's the voters he needs to show the proof to, but he avoided that completely, continuing his pattern of obfuscation and rhetorical spinning.

[sbc]

I listened to the debate, but it sounded pretty intense. Personally, I am not a big fan of the debates. Too many off point or shallow sound bites that the campaigns can use to swipe at each other on the campaign trail. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, you have to not only look at a campaign's website, but also look for more substantial interviews (not one of those 5 minute jobs you find on the Today Show or GMA).

One good interview is the one Obama did last week with the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board. It was him and what looked to be eight of their editors, including Phil Bronstein. The questions were probing, focusing on governmental accountability, health care, the environment, foreign relations and Iraq, and more. And, Obama had time to answer the questions in depth. This is the kind of work the media should be doing to educate the public. The Chronicle says they would be doing these interviews with the other presidential candidates. i hope they do. Here is the interview: http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1381682549.

[Rhon Salmon]

Well I'm unashamedly a Clinton supporter...probably one of the few at 22 years old. But even at 22 years old, I'm a two time Iraq war veteran, I've checked out both Hillary's and Obama's stance on defense. Hillary is seasoned on the Senate Armed Services Committee which has instigated many of the better changes for me and my fellow troops.

Hillary is tough too...and 90% of the people who may reply after my post disagreeing with me...even hating Hillary with a passion, but guess what? The Clintons know politics. You have to admire how effectively they have thrown Obama off his game...so much for all that hope and change stuff. You can tell his inexperience just by him saying "sometimes it is hard to tell who I'm running against" The Clintons got him dazed and confused....and he thinks he is ready to take on the Republicans...the often times nasty republicans especially with Karl Rove playing the free lance role of Surrogate this year, Ha!

Although I would be grossly disappointed but if Obama gets the nomination at least by November he will be ready to take on the GOP, why? Because Clinton is grooming him right now...he should picture this as Washington's version of boot camp and Hillary is that ferocious Drill Sergeant. My progress report? Obama looks flustered, especially last night...Clinton lured him and now she has him right where she wants him...he better get up fast before she lands the Campaign-ending uppercut that is called Super Tuesday.

By the way, is it me or is Bill Clinton right? Obama is getting a free pass from the media...remember when Mitt Romney had to explain his being Mormon...I don't recall Obama having to do the same for his affiliation with a controversial church with a pastor that is the Christian version of Farrakhan...a little bit more reckless at the mouth...I visited the church's website and it is very disturbing...even for me as a black man.

[kylej]

These debates are getting more and more heated, but the more I watch the more I appreciate how good a politician Hillary is. I think Obama is more sincere, and has better goals, but just is not as concise at getting his points out in a sound bite type way. Hillary just seems to want some revenge on the GOP. I like her but I can't see her accomplishing much, and she could possibly lose the general due to how polarizing she is.

The republicans have no real strong candidates that Obama wouldn't beat, plus his ability to bring the two sides together I think is what this country really needs. I don't think we should be choosing our leader based on who would be best at fighting the other side, we should be doing just the opposite. Hillary is falling into Bush's "with us or against us" logic in our own country.

[Irritated]

I love Hillary's charming comment this morning that Obama was "looking for a fight".

What? Are we suddenly in high school again? Wanna meet behind the bleachers with the gang?

I can see Hillary's first Budgetary Submission, with the republicans saying "no", and she's up there bragging about how tough she is. This is what we're dealing with in Congress, and *nothing* is getting done. Just endless press releases on who is tougher than who.

The more Hillary goes on about how she can handle the slings and arrows of outrageous polticos, the less likely I'm going to vote her in. She obviously thinks of government as "Me Hero, They Enemy". That's how George thinks.

It will be a wasted four years.

[Sue]

I saw Sen. Obama in a new light in the debate last night: he seemed self-absorbed and self-annointed and surprised that someone would hold him accountable for his voting record or campaign contributions. He would turn a question asked by Sen. Clinton back on her but not answer the question -often a tactic used to quiet the questioner. To Sen. Clinton's great credit she was not intimidated by Sen. Obama's anger and reasked the question.

Now I see Sen. Obama as the Democratic-lite candidate rather like George Bush is the Republican-lite President. Both used drugs and alcohol - both feel they are the chosen ones. George Bush had little experience and that lack of intellectual skill and knowledge accumulated over time has gotten this country into deep trouble.

Sen. Edwards has a great understanding of the issues facing the American people gained from years of experience of living and working and then representing people struggling to survive. But he is short on foreign policy experience.

Sen. Clinton understands how to get things done and has demonstrated that she is a hardworking, capable and knowledgeable candidate ready to go to work to clean up the mess left to us by the Republicans. She has my vote.

[Kathy]

This sniping back and forth is actually a great way to parse out who a candidate really is. It's not especially pleasant to watch but after enough confrontations and seeing how they handle such attacks you get a really good sense of who they are under stress. And since the next president will inherit a mess, foreign and domestic, I want to know how they handle opposition, both fair and nasty.

If Obama can't take on both Clintons, attack dogs both, he won't be able to take on the Republicans because they have no bottom for vile behavior. And if you can't take on the Repubilcans in an election you can't take them - and special intereests - on once in office.

It's not the way I want it to be but it's the way it is. A training ground.

[anna]

It would be nice if these candidates would leave their petty complaints and attacks on one another out of the deabte. It would be one thing to point out flaws or concerns with other candidate's issues, but to argue over the first black president is ridiculous and irrelevant.