- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Disclaimer*- I have been moving and couldn't catch the debate, so all of my knowledge of it comes from this article. There may still be value in my thoughts because a lot of people will get their debate information the same way.
Based on the article, I would say that Hillary may be in trouble. Getting shrill and attacking after Iowa feeds into some of the negative perceptions of her that already exist. And her "we're looking for ... a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today and tomorrow" comment sounds like something Bush would say, which doesn't exactly make the case for change.
Obama, on the other hand, seemed to be playing from the right playbook. Rule #1 for a front runner is DON'T BLOW IT. If Obama looked "presidential" and avoided gaffes, he did his job.
Richardson may not have a chance, but showing himself as being somehow above the bickering kids was what he needed to do. And getting the best line of the debate never hurts.
Edwards just doesn't do it for me, so it is hard for me to comment on him. He let Cheney walk all over him 4 years ago and brought nothing to the ticket for Kerry. I don't like the way he seems to trot out his wife to make the remarks that anyone not dying would be criticized for. Personally, I would be concerned about having a President who put his job before his dying wife and even more concerned about one who put his dying wife before his job. It is an unpleasant topic, but it IS (tragically) relevant to the job he is seeking, even if it is something we can't talk about.
