Scoring the New Hampshire debates

I generally have little patience for people who rip all politicians, saying they're corrupt and nothing is ever going to change. It's all empty, feel-good bombast; the most vocal cynics are generally the same people who never pick up a newspaper, who put no work into their civic responsibilities and would certainly never stay in on a Saturday night to watch candidates debate (or if they were home would be watching playoff football--and not just at commercials). We do, indeed, get the leaders we deserve.

ABC put on two extraordinary debates tonight from New Hampshire, hosting all the major Republican and Democratic candidates in a unique format in conjunction with WMUR (New Hampshire's most important media outlet along with the Union Leader) and Facebook.

I thought the candidates were all interesting and intelligent, with a lot of good moments of disagreement and some telling exchanges. It was democracy at its best, with both the politicians and the media at their best.

The Republicans started--I was surprised at how reasonable they all seemed (I have to admit I missed much of the first 45 minutes watching the amazing Redskins-Seahawks game), and how interesting the level of discourse was.

Mitt Romney got smacked around by everyone, but he did a pretty good job of forcefully and directly answering attacks--an executive that was on top of the facts. He didn't seem very likeable though; a bit overbearing, and generally grimaced rather than smiled.

John McCain seemed old and physically a bit infirm; however his devilish sense of humor was in evidence, generally with barbs directed at Romney. I worry about things like stamina with him; but I do like him best of the Republicans even if I disagree with all of his policies, and thought his answer to what his enduring principles were (essentially the Constitution he swore to defend in the Navy) was tone-perfect.

His worst political moment was on illegal immigration--I loved his answer and his initial reminder that "they're" all God's children, but he stumbled in the following cross-exchange and seemed to be talking past the other candidates' attacks. He should've just said look, you all sound racist as hell and I am not going to be part of a party that keeps calling other Americans--many of whom, although illegal, have been tax-paying members of our communities for many years--"they". And there's no way in hell we're the kind of country that's going to run 12 million people out of town.

I was surprised by Mike Huckabee--he was much more likeable and reasonable than I had thought, and it made me think if he wasn't such an evangelical nut I might actually enjoy hearing more from him. He kept the crazy religion talk under cover for one night, and seemed at moments like the adult at the table as McCain/Romney/Rudy Giuliani/Fred Thompson sparred.

The wannabe-dictator of NYC had an okay night; he wasn't really memorable, and just earnestly kept trying to inject his 9/11 experience and manufactured foreign policy expertise into everything. I feel as if Giuliani was on a different page from everyone else, smiling and fiddling while the early states pass so he can implement his master plan of winning big states where people form their impressions from TV rather than actual knowledge.

Speaking of TV, Thompson also surprised me; he was funnier and smarter than he's seemed, and although played the part of grumpy old man a little too much he did often cut through the sniping with an appropriately tart remark that made everyone laugh and reassess. He has no chance, of course, but it explained a little bit why some Republican faithful were so enamored with him before he actually started to run (and why he finished third in Iowa).

Finally, and the Republicans did have like 2 too many people on stage, Ron Paul was fine--he came across as articulate and passionate sometimes (we need to cut the deficit), just plain nuts other times (does he support a return to a gold-based monetary system?)

The most interesting moment for the Republicans came when WMUR's political director Scott Spradling asked how they'd differentiate themselves from Barack Obama. None of them really hit him hard--they all expressed respect for him, with Huckabee even saying he thought all the Republicans needed to hear his message for change otherwise they were going to lose. It was startling; some of it was smart politics, because I think they all deep down would rather run against the possibly raw Obama than the battle-tough Clinton; however, I felt it was also genuine--they do all seem to like him, even if they think he's a liberal, and really, it almost seemed like he was some elder statesman the way they talked about him.

In this vein, after the 90 minutes were up Charlie Gibson earned his paycheck for the year by asking the Democrats to join the Republicans on stage, as a reminder that no matter who we elect we'll all support the new president. It was an extraordinary moment, and the audience applauded loud and long as it stretched into a few minutes of well-intentioned public servants shaking hands (arms around each other in the case of Hillary Clinton and McCain). Obama, as George Stephanopolous also noticed, came out first and started working the line like a pro.

On the Democratic side John Edwards did the best overall--he was consistent in his anti-entrenched interests spiel, was passionate, articulate, and seemed like a viable candidate (even if he blinks like a girl). I thought it was interesting that he aligned himself so clearly with Obama's themes, coming to his defense a few times. I don't think it's a winning strategy--he has neither money nor organizational strength outside of the early states, and runs the risk of coming across as Obama's VP in waiting. He's strong enough rhetorically to stand on his own two feet; why jump in when your only rival for the anti-Hillary is getting beat up? He doesn't really think Clinton's gonna drop out before he does... does he?

I was also surprised by Bill Richardson; he started off with a horrible answer on Pakistan/terrorism, where you felt like he was an unprepared student making up something in class. But as the night went on he came across as a practical executive with some good, down-to-earth ideas--I think he might make an excellent Secretary of State. He didn't look totally out of place, which I'm sure was his goal for the night.

Hillary Clinton was her usual steely, intelligent, direct self--she had a moment when she was almost shouting when articulating all the change she's actually pushed through (prompting Richardson's line of the night, that he'd been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this).

She did seem a bit impatient, like come on, who are these neophytes to be talking back to me; but as always seemed ready to be president, although maybe a 'hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-her' one. In the break between the first and second parts she must have been advised to not be so grim; she laughed and actually even simpered in response to the first question, about her likeability being low in polls in comparison to Obama, capping her girlish reaction by smiling and said she, too, thought Obama was a likeable guy. Perhaps sensing he was being patronized a bit (aka Joe Biden and his clean/smart remark) Obama tartly said "I think you're likeable, enough"; for some reason Hillary then laughed and said thanks for saying that.

I do think Obama took some hits tonight; he stumbled a bit early, and Clinton probably scored some points with her sharp remarks about words being no substitute for hard work. However, and this is a huge however--the moments I remember from the night are mainly his. He gave a pitch-perfect response to Gibson's question about whether the surge in Iraq seems to have worked, denying the premise by saying it only seems that way because the bar's been set so low by giant failure. It made all the other candidates' technocratic quibblings seem stupid. He turned Hillary's premise about pretty speeches meaning nothing around on her, saying he thought words can matter a lot when people are hungry to be led.

Obama did this a number of times during the night, parrying critiques by saying essentially expand your narrow Washington outlook and don't get bogged down arguing point by point. He's uniquely good at this, with his cadence, his smile, his demeanor, his background. It's why he's going to win New Hampshire, he inspires you even if you don't always agree with all his positions (and I happen to, in general).

Obama resonates with ordinary people because he's just like us, but more competent. One of the funniest moment of the night was when he was asked about his reaction to what the Republicans had said about him; he said well, I was watching their debate, but I have to admit I also watched a lot of the football game.

At which point Charlie Gibson asked him how the Redskins had done, Obama informed him they'd lost, Gibson expressed disgust, and everyone laughed.

AP Photo by Steven Senne