Partisan debate crowd
November 16th, 2007 – 12:21 PM by Dennis J. McGrathThe consensus analysis of last night’s Democratic debate was that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton regained her balance and appeared forceful, confident and energized.
But an interesting, and less explored, twist was the audience. It sounded awfully partisan for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and perhaps affected the countours of the debate.
Here’s what Slate’s John Dickerson wrote: “When Obama and Edwards tried to force Clinton into a stumble, they were booed by the occasionally raucous audience. That seemed to make them back off.
|
“Who knows what motivated the booing. It could have been Hillary partisans. It could have been that the audience didn’t like to hear the attacks. Clinton, for her part, only counter-punched, which may be why when she got pointed the crowd tolerated it. Or it could be that the people in the room, like most Democratic voters, wanted to hear the candidates on the issues.”
Debate organizers typically try to ensure an evenly-balanced audience — giving an equal number of tickets to each campaign, for example. Of course, an evenly-divided crowd doesn’t ensure that all the factions will behave the same way in the hall.
When Sen. Barack Obama spoke sometimes, you could hear some in the audience calling out and interrupting him. It sounded like heckling. And when he stumbled through his answer on driver’s licenses for illegal immigration, and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called him on it, the crowd laughed heartily.
When Clinton slapped Edwards with the charge that he was engaged in “mud-slinging,” there was no disapproval from the audience.
An energized audience, with its applause and hollering, no doubt enlivens the debate from a viewer’s perspective. But at what price?
Were Obama and Edwards done a disservice by having a live audience that was more on Clinton’s side than on theirs?
11 Responses to "Partisan debate crowd"
Dennis,
I think the current state of politics, including both major parties, is disgusting. Is this the best we can do?
Here’s my favorite parts of the gracious Ms. Clinton’s rebuttle:
“I’ve just been personally attacked again,” she told moderator Wolf Blitzer. “I don’t mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it’s both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook.”
So, according to Ms. Clinton, it’s alright to personaaly attack an entire political party.
Now this just shows the depth at which she will go to try and make deals between our two parties.
Kind of makes you proud to be an American.
No, I don’t think so. The problem with the attacks that Edwards and Obama are making against Hillary is that there’s not a whole lot to them. They argue around the edges of the health care debate, but their plans are all very similar. Edwards and Obama all have issues where they have been as vague (or shifty, if you prefer) as Hillary — Social Security, for instance. Edwards talks a good game on Iraq/Iran, but he failed to demonstrate any of that aggressiveness while he was in the Senate, so it all seems a bit hollow. Obama got tongue-tied on the drivers license question just as Hillary did in the previous debate.
I think Hillary Clinton was trying to deflect the attack by calling it mud. It’s fair enough to point out how much of her contributions come from lobbyists.
I also thought Wolf Blitzer was off base when he wanted a yes or no, without explaining answer on the drivers license for undocumented people.
The format was Jerry Springer, and Hillary is leading the race. Taken together, the audience reaction was completely understandable. Unsavory, but understandable. Edwards and Obama did pretty much everything they did previously; Clinton just didn\\\’t boof it this time.
If I ever hear another \\\”yes or no\\\” question offered in a supposed debate, I\\\’m turning. It\\\’s not intended to elicit an opinion, it\\\’s intended to trap.
*…it’s alright to personaaly attack an entire political party.* - Grant
A \\\’personal\\\’ attack against a group? That needs some explaining. But it also shows how little it takes to get your dandruff up. A crack about Republicans — OMG!! How can any proud American sleep?
Good morning Dennis,
Did you accidently delete one of my comments?
Robert: No it was not accidental. It was deliberate. I don’t want the discussion here to degenerate into name-calling. It’s fine to disagree strongly and to question someone’s use of facts or their reasoning. But please, let’s act like adults and not resort to insults and name-calling.
Dennis,
you mean like referring to me as “grunt” and not “grant?”
Come on Dennis,
Don’t be as hypocritical as the paper you work for.
I Agree!!!
Let the deleting begin!
Robert: The spelling of your name, which I hadn’t noticed until you called to my attention, has been corrected. Now, let’s get back to debating issues and politics.
My apologies, Mister Grant.
There are and have been many fine Americans named “Grant”. I will stick to attacking your opinions, and not your C.B. radio handle (wishIwuz logged in when it was posted, tho).
Back to politics: I would like to hear whether you feel Hillary has been harder on Republicans than Giuliani has been on Democrats.